British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 31, 2003

H0331pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, March 31, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 13, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, John (L).........................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn................................................................John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, March 31, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5741 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 5741 Milton Wong Hon. G. Hogg Ed Macgregor B. Kerr Hon. G.

Abbott Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5742 Life-saving award recipients R. Lee Sandy Merriman House J. Bray B.C. Human Rights Tribunal L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5743 Emergency care availability and handling of SARS cases J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Independent power project proposals D. Chutter Hon. R.

Neufeld Forests ministry recreation site management contracts J. Wilson Hon. J. Murray Sex offenders registry B. Locke Hon. R. Coleman Home invasions T. Bhullar Hon. R. Coleman Review of ICBC c.a.r. shop program B. Suffredine Hon. G. Collins Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5746 J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Collins Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5748 Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong P. Nettleton Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5764 Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5764 Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong W.

Cobb Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling) .......................................................................................... ........................................... 5780 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5780 Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong W.

Cobb Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 5788 Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 5789 Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5789 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) S.

Orr Hon. G. Hogg L. Mayencourt J. Nuraney R. Nijjar B. Locke R. Lee Hon. L. Reid E. Brenzinger B. Suffredine J. Bray R. Sultan I. Chong W. McMahon S. Brice V. Anderson

5741 MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. C. Clark: I had the privilege today of present- ing the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal to two civil ser- vants in the Ministry of Education.

As you know, Her Majesty represents the highest ideals of community service and public service, as do the two individuals I was able to present this award to today. [1405] While they've been singled out for their tremen- dous service over the years, they are just two civil ser- vants amongst many, many at the Ministry of Educa- tion who've devoted much of their lives, energy and passion to making sure our education system is the best in the world. I'm delighted to be able to introduce all of you to them today. In our gallery we have with us Peter Owen, from the Ministry of Education, and Heather Walker as well.

I hope the House will make them welcome. P. Wong: Joining us in the House today are Ms. Marita Luk, the business development manager, and Mr. John English, the dean from the BCIT school of construction. Would the House please make them most welcome. Tributes MILTON WONG Hon. G. Hogg: Last week, the week of March 24, was Social Work Week in British Columbia, and we, through that week, celebrate the sacrifices and contributions that social workers make across this province. The Premier and I had the privilege last Friday of making one person an honorary social worker.

That person is Milton Wong, the chancellor of Simon Fraser University, who is now an honorary social worker. I would ask the House to extend our congratulations to him for the work that he's done on behalf of the people of this province. Introductions by Members E. Brenzinger: Today in the House I have joining me two young gentlemen from my riding of Surrey- Whalley. I have Rick Kraushar and Rudolf Sokolovski. Would the House please make them welcome. J. MacPhail: I have two introductions to make this a f t e r n o o n .

F i r s t , w e a r e j o i n e d b y a c o u p l e o f c o n c e r n e d IWA members in the gallery today, Darol Smith and Gary Kobayashi. Would the House please make them welcome. Then two young post-secondary students from Malaspina College, Margo Dolling and Josh Dolling. Would the House please make them welcome. W. Cobb: Mine is not an introduction, but a recog- nition. For the first time in the 50-year history of minor hockey in one of my communities, a Williams Lake team has won the B.C. hockey title. The Williams Lake McDonald's midget Broncos captured the B.C.

AAA rep minor hockey crown at the seven-team provincial championship playoffs. The Williams Lake boys, coached by Sid Davis and Jason Smart, compiled a five-win, one-tie and one-loss record at the Kelowna tournament against Kamloops — 4 to 2. The Williams Lake squad will now represent B.C. in the B.C.–Alberta regional Air Canada Cup. The best-of-three series will be played against a Calgary team in Williams Lake this Friday, Saturday and Sun- d a y . P l e a s e j o i n m e i n c o n g r a t u l a t i n g t h e m a n d w i s h - ing them well this weekend. Tributes ED MACGREGOR B.

Kerr: It's with sadness that I announce the pass- ing of Sooke's first and only mayor. Ed Macgregor was a tremendous administrator as he guided Sooke through its incorporation process, and then as mayor for two terms taking it through the growing pains of being a new municipality. One thing that Ed Macgregor was not: he was not pretentious. Ed would be just as comfortable or proba- bly more comfortable in his cutoffs and T-shirt working in his garden than wearing a jacket and tie. Ed is going to be dearly missed by his community, and our condo- lences go his wife, Linda, and his family. Hon. G.

Abbott: I want to join with the member in paying tribute to Ed Macgregor, as the minister respon- sible for municipal affairs in the province. I had the pleasure of meeting Ed on several occasions. He was a very fine gentleman and a tireless champion for his community. He'll be very much missed by everyone in the municipality affairs realm, as well as in his own community obviously. Again, we mourn his passing. Introductions by Members Hon. G.

Hogg: Consistent with my practice of re- porting on basketball excellence in this House, last week I reported on the fact that White Rock Christian and Earl Marriott Secondary won the provincial bas- ketball championship. This week's report is from the provincial master's basketball tournament, a championship held in Ab- botsford this past weekend, where a Victoria team per- formed well above their potential and came home with a sixth-place finish in the C division. [1410] This gritty group was led by the legendary, lanky and loquacious Les Leyne.

Would the House please join me in extending congratulations to this group who exceeded all expectations and finished…. L. Mayencourt: I was just looking up in the gallery, and I noticed that a very good friend, Wilf Hurd, is

5742 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 here in the House — a former member of this Legisla- ture. Would the House please make him welcome. Hon. K. Falcon: Many members will know that there was a terrible tragedy in my community of Cloverdale last week. Four young people died, and one was critically injured in a horrible motor vehicle accident. Having attended the memorial service for one of the young people over the weekend, I can tell the House that this tragedy has deeply affected not only the family, friends and classmates of these young people but the entire community of Clover- dale.

I would ask that the Speaker, on behalf of all mem- b e r s o f t h i s H o u s e , p l e a s e s e n d a m e s s a g e o f c o n d o - lence to all the families of the young people involved in this tragic accident. Mr. Speaker: So ordered. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) LIFE-SAVING AWARD RECIPIENTS R. Lee: L a s t S a t u r d a y I h a d t h e h o n o u r t o p a r t i c i - pate in the ninety-first annual Commonwealth honour and rescue awards ceremony at the Hotel Vancouver. I brought greetings from the Premier to welcome the recipients and guests. This year many members of the Lifesaving Society of Canada, B.C. and Yukon Branch, have received the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for their contributions and achievements benefiting their fellow citizens and community.

Recipients of the medal included Jon MacKinnon, branch governor, and Jean Lathwell, who began her volunteer involvement with the Lifesaving Society in 1944. Again, we heard many meritorious actions of Brit- ish Columbians in saving lives. For example, Vernon Botkin saved the lives of two young motorists from a water-filled Richmond ditch. Jeff Chapman and Keith Sterling-Pither saved Keith Fuller from his partially submerged boat off Port Renfrew.

David Davis pulled a man without a life jacket off the water near Gonzales Bay, and Jack Macdonald brought a little girl's — Char Cook's — life back when vacationing in Christopher Lake, Saskatchewan. Other rescues involving significant acts of bravery over the past year included a group of students and their teacher Alyson King and parent Bill Balakshin from the Chilliwack Middle School at Stave Lake; Doug Bray at Hemlock Valley; Kelli Deering in Smithers; Beckie Harcourt on Pender Island, Reginald Lehman and John Mayr at Three Valley Gap Lake, and Alishia Muehlfarth at Waterfront Park, Burrard Inlet.

Many of these people put their lives in danger. Their heroic and selfless action is an inspiration to us. Would the House join me to honour the life-saving actions and services of these outstanding British Co- lumbians. SANDY MERRIMAN HOUSE J. Bray: Today I would like to advise this House and my constituents about recent developments con- cerning a vital service in my community: Sandy Merriman House. Sandy Merriman House is a hostel facility for women operated through the Victoria Cool Aid Society since 1997. Sandy Merriman House oper- ates as a shelter hostel for women in crisis.

Women also receive two meals, access to shower facilities and laun- dry service and access to telephones, etc., and, most importantly, a safe place with caring staff that under- stand the needs of the women who use this facility. Until November of last year Sandy Merriman was also open during the day as a drop-in centre for women to come in for information, support, a warm cup of coffee and a safe haven from the streets. In the fall Cool Aid was not successful in its contract applica- tion to continue the day program, and thus Sandy Merriman House was only open from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m.

Concurrently, the city of Victoria, Vancouver Island health authority and Victoria city police issued a joint strategy on how to deal with illicit drug use, homeless- ness and mental health as it pertains to our community. [1415] I have spoken in this House about the cooperation among the local authorities to deliver immediate as well as long-term solutions and the need for the pro- vincial government to partner in these solutions. My Victoria-area colleagues and I have continued to work with ministers to ensure that we do our part to support this collaborative approach.

Earlier the province con- tributed funding to assist in the needle pickup and disposal program. I have also spoken about the need for a safe place for women at risk. Some of those that were caught in the downtown situation were clients of Sandy Merriman House. This is why I'm so pleased that in bringing Cool Aid together with Ministry of Human Resources staff, funding is now available through June 2003 to once again offer the day program at Sandy Merriman. This safe haven for women will again be open 24 hours a day and will provide another provin- cial contribution to the Victoria downtown strategy.

By working together, we can make a difference for our communities. B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL L. Mayencourt: Friday was a historic day here in British Columbia, when I attended the Attorney Gen- eral's announcement regarding the new Human Rights Tribunal. This fresh initiative by our government will begin a new era in British Columbia human rights and how cases are handled. The new model will focus on mediation and resolution and will promote education and greater access to information. As of this morning a single body will handle all human rights complaints from start to finish.

The human rights tribunal has been given a clear mandate to provide improved accessibility and to help

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5743 make its processes and procedures clearer. They have created a system that is straightforward and easy to understand. As the Attorney General stated, not all human rights cases are the same, but each person equally deserves to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. The tribunal will now be able to effectively monitor each case accordingly and help people solve their problems in a speedy and efficient manner. Legal support will be available to those who need assistance through a clinic run jointly by the B.C.

Human Rights Coalition and the Community Legal Assistance Society. It's important that every individual fully understands the process involved in a human rights complaint, and this initiative will achieve that. Another important aspect of this system is the em- phasis on education. Our government has taken on the important role of educating employers, employees and the general public regarding the Human Rights Code. Education is our most effective tool in making the code a success. That we require a human rights tribunal is an un- fortunate fact in our society today.

Each of us needs to champion human rights and provide services to those that need them in a timely, affordable and practical manner. In conclusion, this is a step forward for all British Columbians, because they will know that this govern- ment respects every individual's right to receive fair treatment and find justice. I congratulate the Attorney General and all those involved with Friday's an- nouncement for launching this important initiative. Oral Questions EMERGENCY CARE AVAILABILITY AND HANDLING OF SARS CASES J.

MacPhail: Last week a young man died while physicians at Mission Memorial Hospital scrambled to find him an intensive care unit bed. The young man couldn't be treated at Mission Memorial Hospital be- cause its emergency services had been severely cut b a c k b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t . I t t o o k o v e r t h r e e h o u r s f o r doctors to find him an ICU bed. By that time, it was too late, and the coroner is now investigating.

Can the Minister of Health Services tell this House what additional steps he is taking to investigate this tragic event, and will he now share with the House whether he thinks that shutting down emergency ser- vices in major population centres like Mission may have been a serious mistake? Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly share the member's concern for this very tragic situation. I think it was very difficult for any of us to relate to the loss of a son or a daughter, especially a young person being taken in tragic circumstances.

I can assure the member that in this circumstance it really had nothing to do with the ICU. It was not an ICU that this young man needed in that circumstance but rather a trauma care, and the efforts…. The Mission Memorial Hospital has never had trauma care, so that would not have been a factor at all. I can also assure the member that there is 24-hour- a-day, seven-day-a-week emergency room coverage with physicians there. That has not been decreased, as the member implied in her question. Certainly, the health authority is working closely with the coroner.

There will be full cooperation, and we will welcome a thorough review of the efforts that were made to save this young man's life. If there is anything to be learned from the report of the coroner's inquiry…. We will cer- tainly ensure that those measures get implemented, if there are recommendations. [1420] Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: I assume that, like me, the Minister of Health Services will await the coroner's report before reaching any conclusions.

Mission Memorial Hospital is just one of the many hospitals in the lower mainland and around the prov- ince that have had their emergency care, trauma care and acute care facilities cut back by this government. In the Fraser health authority alone, up to 335 acute care beds are now being cut. Doctors, as of this weekend, are raising the alarm about the possible effects this might have on treating a potential epidemic like SARS. Today Dr. Tom Koch, of Simon Fraser University, says that B.C. will be unable to handle a similar outbreak of SARS like the one that's occurring in Ontario.

Again to the Minister of Health Services or the Min- ister of Health Planning: what assurances can either of them provide to British Columbians that B.C. is pre- pared to handle a SARS outbreak despite these severe cuts to emergency care, acute care and trauma care? Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I would like to point out that there has been no reduction in trauma care in the province. We have centres of specialization in trauma care in the province, and indeed those are be- ing strengthened around the province.

The member should know from her time as Minister of Health in this province that the demand for the number of acute care beds is dropping considerably — and during the time she was minister, the number of acute care beds in this province dropped — because so many more pro- cedures are being done as a result of day surgery. When it comes to the SARS epidemic, I read the letter to the editor this morning by Tom Koch, and quite frankly, he's totally wrong. He's totally off base.

We in British Columbia, with the health professionals we have, have done an absolutely first-class job of deal- ing with this challenge that has come to the health care system of British Columbia. I am extremely proud of the work that was done by the front-line workers at Vancouver General Hospital when they had the first case put into isolation so quickly. I am extremely proud of the work that is being done by our medical health officers and our provincial

5744 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 health officer. I am extremely proud of the work that's being done at the Centre for Disease Control. It is a challenge, and we are trying to deal with it in a very deliberate way. It's certainly one of the highest priorities that we have in the system today. I am also fully confident that our acute care system in British Columbia is better able to deal with this challenge than almost any other province in Canada. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a second supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: There's no question, as the minister says, that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has done an admirable job of containing the spread of SARS so far. I'm not quite sure why the minister feels it's neces- sary to attack Dr. Koch. The point he was making is about the capacity of the health system to cope with an epidemic once an outbreak has occurred. Dr. Koch points out that as a result of acute care bed cuts, which is a reality, it's much more difficult to transfer patients between facilities — whether it be a trauma bed or an acute care bed.

That was the situation that faced the tragic circumstances of the man in Mission. The capac- ity to transfer between facilities is essential when faced with an epidemic. It's what Ontario is faced with right now. Everywhere I went this weekend, British Columbi- ans are concerned about the recent outbreak of SARS. They want assurances from the government that the government has made allowances for all circum- stances, including a huge number of emergency admis- sions to hospitals. They want assurances that emer- gency room care will be there even when there's re- duced capacity.

All I'm asking the minister for is information. I think that was the tenor of Dr. Koch's letter as well. Can he table the government's analysis of the effect of emergency room changes and acute care bed changes on the province's preparedness for the outbreak of an epidemic like SARS? It is nowhere to be found in in- formation yet. [1425] Hon. C. Hansen: The redesign of the health care system that we announced a year ago this month was all about building a network of care.

It was something that has never happened before in this province, where you actually can have emergency rooms in hospitals communicating with each other in a very effective way, and where we have an ambulance ser- vice that is actually properly trained to deal with the kind of transfers that the member is talking about. For the first time we're actually getting paramedics trained up to a level to deal with a lot of those kind of circumstances.

I can give the member 100 percent assurance that everything is being done that needs to be done to make sure that our hospitals and our acute care system are ready to deal with any eventuality and any kind of emergencies they might be faced with. INDEPENDENT POWER PROJECT PROPOSALS D. Chutter: My question is for the Minister of En- ergy and Mines. In my riding there are very good op- portunities for independent power producers to set up clean power projects. Capitalizing on this potential would create jobs for my constituents and economic growth. Last December B.C.

Hydro committed to re- leasing a list of qualified and eligible bidders by Febru- ary or March. It is now the end of March, and a list has yet to be made available. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines now provide that list or update the House on the status of the bid- ding process? Hon. R. Neufeld: Y e s . O u r e n e r g y p l a n t h a t w e released last year said we were going to depend on the independent power producers to provide the incremental growth going forward. In that vein B.C. Hydro called for generation, some 800 megawatt- hours, last fall.

It was oversubscribed by seven times — 5,500 gigawatt-hours of electricity. B.C. Hydro has narrowed that to 30 proposals, which will now move forward into some better planning stages. It's still about 3,300 gigawatt-hours and will hopefully be awarded by the end of the fall — sometime in Septem- ber or October. The project should be in commercial operation by September of 2006. FORESTS MINISTRY RECREATION SITE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS J. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Wa- ter, Land and Air Protection.

I've recently heard from a constituent who is quite concerned that the con- tracts for recreational sites in the provincial parks will not be settled in time for the upcoming tourist season. Specifically, I refer to the Ten Mile Lake Provincial Park just north of Quesnel. This park is a great asset and hosts a number of activities for both residents and tourists. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection comment on the status of the RFP procedure for park services and tell us if the contracts will be in place for the rapidly approaching tourist season? Hon. J.

Murray: I'm happy to report to the House that the request-for-proposals process is going very well. We will have qualified operators in our parks and our campgrounds for the camping season, and that includes Ten Mile Provincial Park. Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a supplementary question. J. Wilson: As I understand it, a contractor does not simply bid on a single park, but rather they bid on a series of park contracts. However, Bowron Lake Park is being treated differently. It has been left out of the package process.

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5745 Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us why Bowron Lake Park has been left out of this process, and how will this affect the RFP process? Hon. J. Murray: The Bowron Lake Provincial Park is being treated as its own bundle, and that's related to the size of the park, the number of day-use and camp- ing areas, and the very special canoe trip circuit in Bowron Lake Provincial Park that requires specialized service. I can assure the member that this park also will have a qualified operator in place in time for the camp- ing season.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY B. Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. The federal government has committed to a sex of- fender registry. My concern is that the registry does not include offenders that are currently serving sentences or those that have been released into the public. My constituents have expressed concern that this makes the registry almost ineffective. [1430] How effective will a registry be without people like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson on it?

Can the Solicitor tell my constituents what his office is doing to encour- age the federal government to make the sex offender registry retroactive? Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, last year the federal government announced that they would be doing enhancements to CPIC which would include a s e x o f f e n d e r r e g i s t r y . A t t h a t t i m e w e m a d e i t v e r y clear that there were a number of things we wanted this registry to be able to do — basically, the search ability of the engine that we would be using on the system; that we would have photo capability and that we would have geomapping.

We think that we can also incorporate those areas into PRIME to actually deal with it in British Columbia. One of the issues that's on the table and that we've made very clear, as have Alberta and Ontario, is that retroactivity has to be part of the sex offender registry. We want everyone that is a sex offender retroactively put on the registry for the protection of our communi- ties. HOME INVASIONS T.

Bhullar: Given the rash of home invasions that have taken place in the lower mainland, can the Solici- tor General tell the House precisely the operational plans that law enforcement agencies have put into place to combat home invasions so that seniors can feel safe in their homes? Hon. R. Coleman: Law enforcement continuously has strategic plans that they're working on with regard to any movement of crime or information or difficulties with crime. As the member knows, there were a num- ber of rewards put up with regard to home invasions a couple of years ago. It had some minimal effect on the issue.

It seemed to die off when we were able to actu- ally catch some of the people with regard to it. The bottom line, though, for crime is that the big step that law enforcement needs is what is before this House today: the bill with regard to PRIME-BC. The ability to actually track crime and track people and move that information seamlessly across jurisdictions in order to fight crime is the absolutely important tool that you can give to law enforcement today. It's the m o s t s t rat e g i c t o o l we c o u l d p ro b ab l y g i v e t o l aw e n- forcement with regard to any of these issues.

In addi- tion to that, we are looking at how we can regionalize and manage our policing and our movement of per- sonnel relative to crime statistics across the region bet- ter, which we're doing with some formulas and plans that we're putting into place with both the RCMP and our municipal police forces. REVIEW OF ICBC C.A.R. SHOP PROGRAM B. Suffredine: L a s t y e a r t h e M i n i s t e r o f F i n a n c e announced a review of ICBC c.a.r. shop accreditation. To become accredited, ICBC requires businesses to meet certain requirements before it guarantees them work.

Many of these requirements have little or noth- ing to do with quality of service, the skill of the em- ployees or safety in the workplace. They are things like the size of the waiting area or the number of parking stalls. Government should not be deciding where people get their cars fixed. That's a consumer choice. To the Minister of Finance: when will this review be complete, and what can we expect from it? Hon. G. Collins: I want to thank members who brought that issue to my attention both prior to the election and since the election, when I've had responsi- bility for ICBC.

It was very clear to me and, as well, other members of the House that the c.a.r. shop pro- gram, as put in place by ICBC, was overly bureaucratic and overly prescriptive and left very little for the con- sumer to decide in choosing where they wanted to go. W e a s k e d I C B C t o d o a r e v i e w o f t h e c . a . r . s h o p program, keeping in mind our goal of deregulation and reducing the burden on people.

I'm pleased to say that ICBC has completed that process and that many of the items causing concern to businesses — i.e., a prescrip- tion on what their hours of business needed to be, the number of parking stalls, whether they had toilet paper in the washroom, whether they had such-and-such a size of waiting room — have all been taken out. As well, any regulations that were over and above or in conflict with some of the other regulations they operate under relative to the Workers Compensation Board, for example, have been streamlined.

ICBC is now accepting new applications for the c.a.r. shop pro- gram as well as working, as a priority, on the backlog that exists. I'm also pleased to say that they've reduced the renewable annual fee for the c.a.r. shop program from

5746 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 $750 to $150 and have also reduced the fee for the ini- tial applications from $750 to $470. I think that's good news to all those people trying to operate their small businesses across the province. [1435] [End of question period.] Point of Privilege J. MacPhail: This morning I rose to give notice of my intent to raise a point of privilege.

I rise now on that matter, of which written notice has been given to the Chair under standing order 26, practice recom- mendation 7, to put to you that there is a prima facie case that the Minister of Forests is in contempt of this House. I offer up as evidence the following: the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which states under the heading, "Payment of 1/2 of holdback for achieving individual responsibilities," "5

(1) Half of the 20% reduction in salary under

section 3, for any period in a fiscal year when a member of the Executive Council was responsible for operating expenses other than of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, becomes due and payable to that member on the next day after the public accounts for that fiscal year are made public, if the actual amount of those operating expenses does not exceed the estimated amount of those operating expenses for that fiscal year in the main estimates." The second

part I offer to you is the Hansard of my exchange with the Minister of Finance on March 5, 2003, wherein he anticipates that the additional expen- diture of $275 million, provided for in Bill 28, the For- estry Revitalization Act, will put the Minister of Forests well over budget for 2002-03. I also offer to you Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, which states under the heading, "Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act": "11 For the purposes of sections 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act in relation to the Minister of Forests for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the estimated amount under

section 6 (1) of that Act is the sum of the amounts appropriated. (

a) for the operating expenses for which that minister is responsible in the main estimates for that fiscal year, and (

b) under sections 9 and 10 (4) of this Act." Sections 9 and 10(4) refer to the total of $275 million in expenditures. This

section 11 says that the Minister of Forests will get his 10 percent takeback because this bill exempts that ministerial expenditure from holding him accountable under the Balanced Budget and Minis- terial Accountability Act. On March 26 the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman — the Minister of Forests — rose in his place, introduced and moved first reading for Bill 28, the For- estry Revitalization Act, which was then placed on the order paper in his name. On March 27 the Minister of Forests again rose in his place and presented his bill for second reading.

At the conclusion of that debate the Minister of Forests voted in its favour. Today, March 31, we are advised by the Government House Leader that the first and primary order of business to be called just moments from now is committee stage on Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, and again the Minister of Forests will be taking the lead on his own bill. [1440]

Section 11 of Bill 28, should it pass, will not change the bottom line for government. It will not impact on how the ministers in general will be compensated un- der the scheme of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

Section 11 of Bill 28, if passed, will grant the Minister of Forests, the very sponsor and quarterback of this bill, the sole and unique benefit of a financial gain — a financial reward worth 10 percent of his ministerial stipend — approximately $4,000 directly into his own pocket. I encourage members of this House to consult the Members' Conflict of Interest Act,

section 2, for a defi- nition of conflict of interest, which reads as follows: "

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execu- tion of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to fur- ther his or her private interest." It's the end of the act. I also assume that all members are familiar with

section 3 of that act, which states: "A member must not exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function if the member has a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest." Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests gained a personal benefit, a unique benefit, as a result of Bill 28, and he stood in this House and voted in favour of that. I now turn to the question of contempt and offer select references on the matter, including the following. 1.

MacMinn, third edition, 1997, who notes under Standing Order 26, which identifies the collective privi- leges of the Members of the Legislative Assembly to include the power to punish for contempt. 2.

Maingot, second edition, 1997, and specifically under the heading of "Contempt of Parliament," the following: "…one of the corporate privileges of the House is the power to punish for contempt." And fur- ther, I continue to quote: "…there is no restriction on what may constitute a 'contempt of parliament."' It goes on to offer some description of what might consti- tute a contempt, as: "…when, by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of C o m m o n s o r S e n a t e o r o f t h e i r l a w f u l c o m m a n d s , t h a t person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be; therefore, it will be seen that the Senate and the House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity." 3.

Erskine May, editions 19, 20, 21 and 22, under the title of "Contempts": "On June 22, 1858, the House of Commons resolved 'that it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its members should bring forward, promote or advocate

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5747 in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in considera- tion of any pecuniary fee or reward.'" 4.

Finally, I will recommend to you the report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member, House of Commons, December 18, 1940, which found that even though the evidence might have been incon- clusive as to the expectations of pecuniary benefit, the conduct of the member in question was still "contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House, and inconsistent with the standards which par- liament is entitled to expect from its members." This House has not ceded its authority to find one of its members in conflict. Indeed, as members will know, any penalties recommended under

section 21 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act must be ap- proved by this House as the ultimate authority. But no one, other than this House, has the authority to deter- mine and punish a contempt against it. [1445] The evidence is irrefutable that the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman and Minister of Forests has — by sponsoring, defending in debate and voting in favour of Bill 28 — sought to derive a financial bene- fit. His conduct was disrespectful of the authority and lawful commands of the Legislative Assembly.

It was also an assault on its dignity and inconsistent with the standards which the Legislative Assembly is entitled to expect from its members. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and submit to you, if I may, a motion. This is a motion that I am prepared to call should you find a prima facie case for contempt. I also seek your advice on the propriety of the bill in question, Bill 28, proceeding as it appears on the order paper under the name of the Minister of Forests while the matter weighs upon your mind.

I also seek your advice, should you find a prima facie case, whether that bill should proceed at all until the respon- sible committee has reported back to this House. Hon. G. Collins: First, I want to reserve my right to raise other matters on this issue, because I have not had the same time to go back and canvass the 1858 and other references, so I'd like to take my opportunity to reserve my right to do that. On the surface, however, I think the member has created a fairly elaborate super- structure with not much in it.

We have in existence in the province of British Co- lumbia something called the Members' Conflict of In- terest Act, which was passed, according to my recollec- tion, somewhat after 1858. It was passed in this Legisla- ture, and it deals with potential conflicts that members may or may not have. I can only assume the member opposite is aware of it as well, because she refers to it in her presentation. The Conflict of Interest Act lays out a number of things where a member can be held in conflict for rais- ing matters or voting on matters where they have an individual interest.

However, this House, both in pass- ing and voting upon the initial Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — all members in this House — voted in favour of it. I think two members voted against it, but other members voted in favour of it. Those members sitting in the cabinet, if the mem- b e r ' s a r g u m e n t w e r e t o s t a n d , w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n breach of the Conflict of Interest Act at the time that that item was raised, debated and voted upon in this House. I believe I would have been as well.

I think I was the sponsoring minister, to use the same reference that the member opposite raises. So I clearly would have been in conflict of interest. Also, every year, when this House votes on vote 1, members vote in favour of their own salaries. If they were to not vote on that or to vote and amend it some- how, they would in fact be impacting their income. As well, there is

an act that has passed this House previ- ously, the Members of the Legislative Assembly Al- lowance and…. I can't remember what it's called. It has to do with our allowances, our pensions, etc. — privi- leges which all members in this House voted upon. And I do recall seeing responses from the conflict-of- interest commissioner to various members of the public who have written to the conflict-of-interest commis- sioner at various times alleging that members voting on their own remuneration was a matter of conflict and him being clear that that was, in fact, not the case.

There's no one else who can vote on it; there's no one else who can bring it up; there's no one else who can debate it. It is the one area where members are entitled to and required to, in fact, vote. Good. Thank you for the quick legislative work of my colleague here.

I refer to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the definition section, where it states: "Pri- vate interest does not include an interest arising from the exercise of an official power or the performance of an official duty or function that applies to the general public, affects the member as one of a broad class of electors, or concerns the remuneration and benefits of a member or an officer or an employee of the Legislative Assembly." J. MacPhail: Broad class. [1450] Hon. G. Collins: Yes, I understand what the mem- ber is saying, but she should have taken her research perhaps one step further to subsection (

c) before she started her victory dance. There have been a number of cases where members h a v e t o a n d i n t h e p a s t h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d t o v o t e upon their remuneration, the benefits that they receive and the pensions that they receive. I know that member stood in this House and voted on matters that relate to remuneration and pensions, because she and I sat in the same House and have been elected for pretty much the same time. It is an interesting superstructure that she has cre- ated.

It has lots of references, but it fails to, I think, deal with the one that is definitive, and this House has al- ready spoken. It has said that when members are deal- ing with their personal remuneration, it is not a matter of privilege. It's very clear. It's in

section 1 of the Con-

5748 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 flict Of Interest Act. It is the most current reference on that regard. This House has chosen to direct its affairs in that way, and clearly it is not a contempt of the House or a contempt of parliament if parliament is dealing in the exact context of the legislation it passed not that terribly long ago. Mr. Speaker: Just one moment, please. The Gov- ernment House Leader has reserved his right to re- spond further to this motion of privilege — later today, I would urge. I would hear one argument only from the government side and one from the opposition side.

The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor again. J. MacPhail: Regardless of that, there is the issue that this government plans to pass this legislation to- day, so there are unique circumstances that face us in this chamber about this matter. Therefore, perhaps the Speaker could see his way to have a recess. Mr. Speaker: If you just take your seat for one mo- ment, I was going to deal with that. The matter of privilege does not go to the validity of the bill. It ad- dresses one aspect of the bill, and that is the role of the minister and the role he has played in the progress through this House.

So the bill is valid, and if it is the Government House Leader's wish, it can proceed to the next stage, which is committee. I will hear the Government House Leader's further argument later today, and then in due course we'll rule on the point of privilege, which I might add is very detailed and well researched. I thank the member for that. It's a very complex issue which will take some time to come back with an answer. We'll leave it at that and proceed with the orders of the day. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Ser- vices. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 28. Committee of the Whole House FORESTRY REVITALIZATION ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:53 p.m. The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:08 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail: We're going to spend some time on this section, because this is a very important part of the Forestry Revitalization Act, Bill 28. I'll read

section 2 into the record. It's entitled "Harvesting rights reduced for timber licences and certain replaceable licences." "2

(1) The allowable annual cut of an ungrouped licence identified in an item of the

Schedule is reduced by the amount specified in Column 3 of that item.

(2) Each area of Crown land described in a timber licence is reduced by 20%.

(3) The total of the allowable annual cuts of the licences in a group of licences listed in an item of the

Schedule is reduced by the amount specified in Column 3 of that item opposite the group name, assigned in Column 1, under which the licences are listed." I h a v e r e f e r r e d i n m y q u e s t i o n s i n s h o r t h a n d , a s this is the

section that deals with 20 percent takeback of tenure. From my reading of the legislation, this applies to forest tenures in excess of 200,000 acres. Is that cor- rect? Hon. M. de Jong: There is a threshold, but for the member's information, the unit of measurement is cu- bic metres, not acres or hectares. J. MacPhail: Is the threshold, then, 200,000 cubic metres? Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct. [1510] J. MacPhail: Can the minister please tell us what areas of the province will see the greatest impact from this takeback? Hon. M. de Jong: The cumulative volume affected is about 8.3 million cubic metres.

The rough break- down on that is 2.6 million cubic metres on the coast and 5.7 million cubic metres in the interior. J. MacPhail: Yes, and therefore I'm interested in the breakdown amongst that. What licences will be af- fected and by how much, please? Hon. M. de Jong: The best answer I think I can give is on a licence-by-licence basis — that is, as set out in the schedule. J. MacPhail: It is interesting that the…. Is the

schedule the one that the minister's referring to at the back that lists…? Let me just describe it. The

schedule lists a number of companies in column 1. Column 2 has the licensing number. Column 3 has the allowable an- nual cut for each of those companies. Then for the ones that have more than one location — for instance, Can- for, which has 15 licence numbers — c o l u m n 3 , t h e allowable annual cut, is blank. Perhaps the minister could be a little more specific because the

schedule doesn't tell me anything on what it means. For instance, in looking at the schedule, item

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5749 5, Canfor Group, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., A19208…. That's a licence number. Why is it broken out like that? Perhaps the minister could describe why it's broken out. Hon. M. de Jong: The licences that are listed — and we'll take the Canfor example — are all of those li- cences which, under the definition and the terms of this act, are subject to the 20 percent takeback.

The number that the member sees immediately to the right of the word Canfor — the 1556012 — is the cumulative total not of all of these licences but of the volume that would be taken back after applying the 20 percent above the 200,000 threshold that Canfor, as an entity, enjoys along with all other licensees. J. MacPhail: It could have been because I was in the hallway, but did the minister introduce his staff? If he didn't, if he wouldn't mind…. Hon. M. de Jong: Don Wright, the deputy, is on my right. Julian Paine is on my left, and behind me is Rich- ard Grieve from the Forest Service. J.

MacPhail: Is there a mill attached to each one of these licences of Canfor? Hon. M. de Jong: No. J. MacPhail: Well, is the government then going to just take 20 percent off…? Is the 1.556 million cubic metres takeback for Canfor going to be divided by 15? [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: It is a fair and appropriate ques- tion. The answer goes like this. We had a choice, hav- ing decided to go down this path of a reallocation. One of the options was to simply apply 20 percent to each of the licences.

In f act, what we are try ing to do is se- cure a maximum amount of flexibility, both for the Crown and indeed for the operators. We need a representative selection of volume in terms of species and in terms of geography, recogniz- ing what our objectives are as they relate to communi- ties, first nations, woodlots. Therefore it is not incon- ceivable — and I'm not sure Canfor is the best example to apply this to — that in a particular case the Crown and a licensee might, for example, agree to the surren- der or reallocation of an entire licence as opposed to simply 20 percent. What the

schedule points out is what, at the end of the day, must be satisfied — the 1.55 million cubic me- tres, in this case, from Canfor. J. MacPhail: I don't want to in any way to suggest that I'm singling out any company by referring to a particular company out of a particular column. I'm just using the various names listed in the legislation to demonstrate the basis from which I'm asking my point. When is this going to be determined? What are the rules to set up for determining this? Hon. M. de Jong: The act stipulates, in a

section we have not yet arrived at, that that selection process ne- gotiation will take place over the next three years. J. MacPhail: I'm being advised to read the bill. I want to assure everybody that I've read the bill. But the fact of the matter is that this legislation is going to be rammed through tonight. What we're really legislating is negotiation, and there are thousands of people's lives affected by this bill and the consequences of this bill. What I'm asking the minister is: how will the nego- tiations work? What has he got planned the minute this bill is passed? Hon.

M. de Jong: To the member, I was not be- ing…. J. MacPhail: No, it wasn't you. Interjection. Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I feel her pain. I am regularly subjected to a similar exercise. What I know is happening on the part of government, as we move through the implementation of this statutory regime, is a process by which we analyze — given our understanding of where the licences have been attrib- uted — our needs as they relate to the objectives. They're very much part of this overall reform agenda. Where is it that we require volumes to deal with first nations on a geographic basis?

Where is it, and from a selection point of view and representative sam- pling point of view…? What is it we need to auction to ensure that we have credible and reliable data to drive a market-based timber pricing regime? Where is it that there is interest in the expansion of a woodlot pro- gram? [1520] From the Crown's point of view, we are in the midst now — in the early stages, admittedly — of de- veloping an inventory of needs as they relate to the 26 various licence groups listed here.

For their part, hav- ing now examined the blueprint that this legislation represents and based on discussions that will take place commencing shortly, licensees will be doing the same. I think there will be a pretty healthy discussion. I think I can also say, honestly, that it's the kind of thing I wish could be done more quickly, but it is a detailed task. That's why the legislation contemplates the three- year period to have those discussions — what will largely be licensee specific. J.

MacPhail: If nothing is concluded before the three years, it means this government will have been beyond one term and will have done nothing in this area. So, I'm a bit taken aback that the minister is rely- ing on a three-year period. As I read the debate by the Liberal backbenchers, they referred over and over and over again to the 1990s as being a disastrous decade. Well, before any conclusion is reached on this matter,

5750 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 we'll be well into the second half of the decade of the two-thousands. Perhaps the minister could give us some guidance on how the 20 percent is to be determined. Is he plan- ning on using the full three years? Will there be an or- der in which companies come forward? Will there be regional discussions? Who will be involved in making the determination? Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer, I think, is quite obviously that I would like this to go as quickly and smoothly as possible.

The three-year period I've al- luded to is a bookend, and to the extent that the vast majority of this can be accomplished in advance of that, that is very much my hope. There are some features to this, though, that I cer- tainly would like all members to be aware of, and that is the very significant interest we have in incorporating first nations into this discussion, recognizing that of the amount slated for reallocation a significant portion is designed to meet our obligations to first nations.

It would be logical, at the earliest possible moment, for them to be involved in the discussions — discussions with licensees and discussions with government — and I do not underestimate the capacity that has for guid- ing the discussions and negotiations and for influenc- ing those discussions as we move forward. J. MacPhail: Maybe I could read into the record what one first nations group has said about this. This is from the Nanaimo Daily News of today on the front page: "Chief Says New Policy 'Arrogant,'" by Nelson Bennett.

"'The provincial government's forest revitalization plan ignores the government's legal obligations to consult with first nations over resources and is sure to trigger a series of legal battles,' says Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. "Phillip said the provincial government failed to meet its legal obligations to consult with first nations on resource issues before 'ramming' through sweeping changes to B.C.'s forest policies. "'Because they hold 77 of 79 seats, they have this very arrogant attitude,' Phillip said." I'll read the whole article; it's very short.

"The changes announced Wednesday include a takeback of 20 percent of Crown tenures, a portion of which goes to first nations. First nations share of Crown forests in B.C. will expand from the current 3 percent to 8 percent, according to the provincial government. The government also proposes to share forestry revenue with first nations. [1525] "Phillip disputes the government's figures, saying the increased access to tenure actually amounts to a 2 or 3 percent increase at most, not a 5 percent increase. Several court decisions have confirmed aboriginal rights over resources, especially in unceded territory.

Since few treaties were signed in B.C., most of the province is unceded territory. In February of last year the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously ruled the provincial government and Weyerhaeuser did not properly consult with the Haida nation over the renewal of a tree farm licence in Queen Charlotte Islands. "'That ruling obliges the provincial government and industry to hold proper consultations with first nations before any development can occur in first nation territory, and in drafting its new forest policies, the government hasn't done that,' Phillip said.

Far from providing more certainty, Phillip said he expects the new policies will result in increased legal challenges. 'It's going to take more litigation to bring the federal and provincial governments to heel to make them understand our legal rights,' he said." T h a t ' s k i n d o f a n i n a u s p i c i o u s b e g i n n i n g t o a s s u m i n g that this is all going to go very well, I would suggest. Sorry, Mr. Chair. That's the end of the article. Why did the government feel it necessary to invoke legislation to do what is really the legal right of first nations in terms of access to tenure? Hon.

M. de Jong: As always, I appreciate the mem- ber's thoughtful questions and, obviously, her right and option to read commentary into the record, though the question from this member surprises me a little bit because I think she knows the answer. That is that we have obligations that are politically based — that is, promises that this government has made — but, much more importantly, obligations that are being increas- ingly defined by the courts, and they relate to the need for us to accommodate as a society the interests of first nations as they relate to a whole range of matters.

In this case we're focusing on forestry and the forest resource, but our ability as a society, our ability as a government — any government — to meet those obli- gations is tied to our possessing the currency required to do just that. In a world where 98 percent of the AAC is already allocated, Forests ministers, opposition lead- ers or members of this House can stand and yell until the cows come home about the interests we have in providing tenure opportunities to first nations. If we don't possess the volume in order to allow that to hap- pen, then they really are statements that don't amount to very much.

At its root, this represents a piece of legislation that minimally provides the Crown with the ability to ac- quire some of the tools necessary — in this case, timber — to satisfy those obligations. I won't comment at length on the article, except to say that the comments attributed to the chief in Mr. Bennett's article, as they relate to volumes, I simply disagree with. P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to ask a question or two of the minister which, in fact, is tied to the line of questioning we are pursuing under

section 2. I know that, perhaps, there is no direct relationship between the line of questioning in and around first nations interests, but certainly indirectly, at least, it is related. It's my understanding that, in fact, under Bill 29 there will be considerable discussions with respect to first nations concerns. [1530] To underscore the point that I think the Leader of the Opposition has been making with respect to these changes before us, which will be implemented shortly,

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5751 I expect that from a first nations perspective…. It's my understanding that most first nations in fact are — if not openly critical with respect to the changes and the lack of consultation from their perspective — at least quietly questioning why it is we find ourselves in the position we're in here in this House, implementing change without the kind of consultation that is critical, is necessary, for all concerned. I have before me — from the part of the world from which I hail, Prince George — a c o u p l e o f n e w s r e - leases.

One is from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, an important tribal council representing numerous first nations — a news release criticizing this government moving forward as it is, characterizing this legislation and the lack of consultation as very disturbing.

I have, as well, from the northwest tribal treaty group another news release dated March 28 — the earlier news release is dated March 27 of this year — again talking about their concerns with respect to the fact that there have not been the kinds of consultations that in fact are nec- essary in order for both first nations and non–first nations to work together to ensure the kinds of opportunities that they — that is, first nations and non–first nations, forest-dependent communities — need to enjoy.

I happen to know that the minister, as the former critic for Aboriginal Affairs, is exceedingly familiar with first nations concerns in and around the forest sector and opportunities that are tied to the forest sec- tor in these forest-dependent communities. As well, the minister in his previous life was a lawyer, so I'm cer- tain that he's also familiar with the case law. There's considerable discussion made in the news release of the northwest tribal treaty group with respect to case law and what it says to the whole question of consultation.

My concern, as a representative of a number of for- est-dependent communities including the larger com- m u n i t y o f P r i n c e G e o r g e , i s t h a t w e m a y f i n d , a t t h e end of the day — even though, as I say, this legislation will, I expect, be implemented and will bring about enormous change…. Nonetheless, we will find our- selves, with respect to first nations and first nations concerns and interests, back in the place where perhaps we face blockades. Perhaps we will find ourselves in a place where we find ourselves in the courts.

I don't think these types of actions are particularly productive in terms of moving forward and creating the kind of certainty to which we've all made reference and which we all want, frankly, with respect to opportunities in the forest sector, particularly taken in the context of the enormous challenges that we face with respect to mar- kets, softwood and what have you. Again, I know the minister has worked very hard on that softwood file, and we all wish him every suc- cess. I can tell you that partisanship and differences aside, that's a file we want to see solved.

I've publicly made the comment that, in my view, this minister is smart, he's tough, he's dedicated, and it's my hope that, in fact, that's a file he resolves. I have some concerns — representing, as I do, first nations communities — t hat i n f ac t we d o no t s e e t he kind of consultation or commitment to consultation that is necessary in order to move forward and move forward smoothly. I'm just wondering: has the minister considered…? Is there some kind of a mechanism for consultation, given the demand of first nations for meaningful consultation, beyond the implementation of this legislation? [1535] Hon.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his thoughtful comments. I know it is a subject that has attracted his attention in the past and to which he has devoted a great deal of energy — and not illogically, given the part of the province that he represents.

The best way, I think, that I can respond to the ob- servations and ultimately the question is to point out the dilemma we face — any government, the govern- ment of the day — confronted on the one hand by the expressions of the expectations that first nations have to be more directly involved in forestry development and in economic opportunities generally around the province. For many first nations, that means forestry.

It is the resource that surrounds them in their communi- ties, and it has been, I am sure, horribly frustrating to watch that resource utilized and impacted, and to have been largely excluded from the benefits that go with that. So first nations say: "It is time to let us participate fully in this resource that exists around our homes and on our traditional territories." I agree. I think the mem- ber agrees; the government agrees. It is a sentiment that all in this House, I think, agree with.

The dilemma, as I referred to earlier, relates to the fact that — to this point at least — previous contractual arrangements have limited the Crown's ability to give effect to those desires. So the member pointed out some of the concerns arising out of the CSTC, the Carrier- Sekani tribal council, and I have heard those concerns. I, however, place them in the context of having been told not so long ago by certain members of that tribal council that the offer that was made for 500,000 cubic metres of cut was insufficient. Now, we may negotiate and quarrel about whether that is so.

At the end of the day I think one of the answers from the Crown is, "But that's what we have" — and, sadly, have that largely because of uplifts that have occurred due to the pine beetle infestation that the member knows well and has worked to call attention to. So how do we rectify that? We have here, broadly speaking, a strategy that tries to put the Crown in the position where it can come to the table with more cur- rency.

This bill is not about revenue-sharing, but there is that aspect of this as well — combined — putting the Crown in a position where it can present some accom- modation offers that hopefully will elicit support from first nations. From a significant

section of the first na- tions community, there is an argument and a cry that say: "Get on with that, because we want to get moving. We want to start putting people to work the way the Cheslatta are putting people to work and the way the Lheidli-T'enneh are wanting to put people to work." Offsetting that cry to get on with it, of course, is the

5752 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 argument that says: "We also want to be fully engaged in the discussion moving forward." [1540] I understand that, and I think the thrust of the question that the member has asked, quite properly, is: what does one do moving forward? And I agree with the member completely. The present circumstance is unsatisfactory. If we are going to engage in a consulta- tive process based on an individual relationship be- tween an individual member and individual bands, the workability of that is, in my view, very much in doubt. The sheer numbers cause logistical problems.

So I think the challenge, and the subject of a discussion with the northwest tribal treaty association that I agreed with, is that we have to find a structure so that those discus- sions are taking place on an ongoing basis. Though there are always political issues, there are, in the con- text of what we are doing here, also very technical is- sues that relate to the operation of forestry in the prov- ince — the involvement of bands, the allocation of tim- ber, forest health issues and questions around things like cut control, which we're going to discuss in an- other bill.

I think the challenge we have is to develop that structure on an ongoing basis. I have asked individuals with the Aboriginal Forest Industries Council to work with us to develop that. There are talks ongoing with the organization that the member referred to. I know there is frustration there that it has taken this long. I hope that amidst the concerns and the criticisms that have arisen, there is some recognition for what the intent is here and what the motivation is. I am told that as Forests ministers go, I have met more often and more frequently with first nations than any predeces- sor.

I don't say that as a way of begging applause but simply as a signal of the interest and the level of import that I and the government attach to this. I know the member is going to remain vigilant. I know the mem- ber is going to do what he can, as he has in the past, to help create those relationships that we need to have moving forward. J. MacPhail: Well, wasn't that pleasant — a nice little chat about first nations, etc. All very nice, except the bill's going to be rammed through by March 31 — tonight — and first nations are upset.

They don't see this in the same way that the Minister of Forests did, and the reason why the Minister of Forests has had to meet so frequently with first nations is because he keeps doing things without consulting them. Let me just tell the House what the First Nations Summit did on March 12, 2003. They passed a unani- mous resolution that requested the cabinet to postpone the Forest Act amendments until the fall session of the House in order to provide time for first nations input. That was after the Minister of Forests met with the first nations on March 11.

It's all very well and good to have meetings, but if you have a meeting that just makes people more upset and takes more of their rights away, it ain't that productive a time. The Minister of Forests was told clearly on March 11 at the summit that there was insufficient consulta- tion and no accommodation of their concerns regard- ing legislative and policy changes.

Also, it's true that the Minister of Forests met with northwest tribal treaty nations on March 3, but there he heard very clearly that their suggestions to postpone legislation were sincere and serious and that they wanted the legislation post- poned because there was no consultation or accommo- dation. What's the good news for first nations around the province as a result of this legislation?

Well, they're having an emergency planning session three days from now to discuss these unilateral changes — not to sit down with the minister because it's been such good legislation, but they're having an emergency planning session because of the unilateral changes brought in by this government. We've got lots of time to read into the record the media releases from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, released March 27. Let me just read a couple of the opening paragraphs.

The title of the news release from the Carrier-Sekani is: "Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council Says Minister of Forests Is Asking for a Legal Battle." "Yesterday's announcement that the forest legislation and policy changes are moving forward without input from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council are 'very disturbing,' says Vice Tribal Chief Harold Prince.

Vice Tribal Chief Prince says: 'First nations throughout the province have stated very clearly, through discussions and correspondence, that changes cannot occur unless accommodation is first negotiated.' [1545] "'The Carrier-Sekani tribal council has on several occasions stated in writing, to both the Premier and the Minister of Forests, that they must first accommodate our concerns.

The First Nations Summit stated two weeks ago in a unanimous resolution that the minister should postpone the changes to allow for first nations input, and the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations stated the same just three weeks ago.'" The minister is somehow trying to say: how else could he do this? What's the problem in recognizing the legal rights of first nations to have their interests accommodated, and the legal obligation of both forest companies and the government to consult before mak- ing changes? What's the problem with the principle of willing buyer, willing seller? Hon.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure I understood the question. It seems to me though, if I have understood correctly, the question that arises from it is that the legal duty to accommodate is not some nebulous thing that is dependent upon the extent to which the Crown can identify a willing seller. It is a real duty that the courts have imposed. I suppose we could tell first nations to cool their heels for another decade or two while we somehow obtain the currency we need to act upon the obligation the courts have identified for us. But I hardly think that would represent a satisfactory solution.

I know that it wouldn't represent a satisfactory approach for the first

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5753 nations that the member neglects to mention, and I wouldn't expect her to — those who, ironically, have made great steps in the last months and several years to become more involved economically in forestry and who are saying quite clearly that they have achieved more in the last two years and have greater expecta- tions for the immediate years moving forward than ever before.

I suppose the member identifies another possible route to the reallocation of timber resources, but I hardly think it's one that would meet with a more posi- tive response, if I understand the suggestion correctly. J. MacPhail: What we're trying to figure out here is how the 20 percent takeback came about, who's im- pacted by it and what the consequences are. Those are the questions I'm asking. So far I've been told there will be three years of negotiations. That hardly gives stabil- ity or certainty to first nations.

It hardly gives stability to forest workers, and it definitely doesn't give stability to the communities that are forest dependent. I'm just exploring with the minister the concept of the 20 percent takeback. He said one of the reasons why we need to do this is to ensure allocation fairness to first nations. That's the basis upon which I'm explor- ing this. I don't recall any first nation briefing me somehow suggesting they advocated legislation for 20 percent takeback. [1550] I am told that there has been a wide recognition of the legal obligation of companies to allocate part of their tenure to first nations.

Why did we then, given the fact that companies are moving in this direction, all of a sudden determine that it would be the government that would determine the takeback without consulting first nations and, frankly, undercutting what I'm told are some companies that wanted to sit down and have willing buyer, willing seller negotiations? Hon. M. de Jong: If I have missed a point, the member will remind me, I'm sure.

First of all, unlike the member, in the time I've had this job, I actually have received a steady stream of recommendations from first nations to do just this: to acquire the ability to redistribute tenure from its pre- sent owners to first nations. Now, have there been dif- ferent views about the amount? Absolutely. But the notion that the Crown would take pre-emptive meas- ures to initiate this reallocation is something any num- ber of first nations have advocated for some time.

I don't want the member to think I am dismissing her suggestion out of hand, because, in fairness, it is something that was discussed — that is, the notion of saying to licensees: "You go and try to come to these accommodation agreements or arrangements." It does not, at the end of the day, discharge the Crown from its legal obligations and fiduciary duties. The other thing I would say candidly to the mem- ber is that the government's interest…. Presumably our interest extends beyond securing certainty for any one licensee.

It is to achieve, at the end of the day, a level of certainty on the land base for everyone. The ability to do that without being directly involved in the process is, I think, open to question and has clearly led us in the direction of the model that the member sees here. J. MacPhail: I hope the minister will, early in this debate, come to the conclusion that he should not leap to conclusions because I am asking questions. I am trying to understand from whence this legislation came. It certainly didn't come from forest workers.

It didn't come from the communities, and it seems to me that first nations are pretty upset too. So where did it come from, and where is it going? Maybe I'll take it in smaller baby steps to figure out, then, where it's going. The 20 percent is going to be determined by negotiations. Who will be at the table? Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions that I contem- plate moving forward would involve Forest Service staff generally at the district level or perhaps at the regional level.

There will be involvement from officials at the senior ministerial level, particularly, I think, in the formative stages and at the concluding stages. Those discussions would relate specifically to the licen- see whose interest is being directly impacted by the reallocation. I don't know if that helps the member. [1555] J. MacPhail: Let's just take an example again. I'll use a different company this time. Let's take Interfor Group. Interfor Group has 13 licences — International Forest Products Ltd.

Will the Forest Service staff meet with the community affected by licence A16841 at a separate table than A16850? [K. Stewart in the chair.] Hon. M. de Jong: Certainly, what will happen is that Forest Service staff will sit down with representa- tives from Interfor. I'm not certain where the two li- cences the member refers to are located vis-à-vis one another or what proximity they have to one another, but that will begin the general discussion.

The Forest Service personnel will make it clear early on what the expectations are from the Crown side, as it relates to the objectives that govern this reform package: first nations, communities — I've listed them — a represen- tative profile of timber. Therein will begin the process of identifying where that representative timber can be drawn from within the licences controlled by the par- ticular company involved. J. MacPhail: The reason why I assume the govern- ment is doing this is to put a whole bunch of timber up for public auction.

The minister, in order to meet all sorts of requirements, has to add about 20 percent — so he says — of the large tenure holders. Well, unless you know how negotiations are going to be structured and unless there's sort of a model by which communities or companies can negotiate it, you could have half in three years reaching the 20 percent and the other half

5754 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 still wrangling over it. That doesn't help at all. It doesn't help the overall objective. I would have assumed the minister would be able to stand up here and say: "As soon as this legislation is passed, here's how negotiations are going to com- mence. The IWA will be at the table. The CEP will be at the table. The Carrier-Sekani will be at the table in its traditional territory. The Penticton band will be at the table in its traditional territory.

The community of Pouce Coupe will be at this table." So far I can't figure out how negotiations are going to occur. Who will be at the table? On top of all of this, it's going to be the Forest Ser- vice staff leading the discussions. How many Forest Service offices did the minister close down today? How many offices were shut today — forever? Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in fact, as part of a restruc- turing program that the member knows well, offices in 20 communities have been significantly downsized, though I am happy to say that the Forest Service will maintain a presence in each and every one of those communities.

You know, when the forest sector goes through a period such as it has over the last decade and r e v e n u e s t o g o v e r n m e n t f a l l b y u p w a r d s o f $ 6 0 0 m i l - lion, I guess there are politicians who would pretend that that does not have an impact on the ability to de- liver services. There are others — and I am one of those — who understand that it has a very direct impact and, in the case of many Forest Service workers, a very un- pleasant one.

No one is denying the importance associ- ated with getting this industry back on its feet and the need to get beyond the denial that we appear to have been in as a government and society for too long. J. MacPhail: That kind of defence of a scoundrel won't get us anywhere, because revenue has fallen more under this government in 20 months than it did throughout the 1990s. So let's not go there. [1600] Secondly, there have been groups of people who have been meeting with this government to talk about changes in the forest sector — not nearly enough.

The group wasn't nearly broad enough, but they did put their heart and soul into determining changes in the forest sector — the Truck Loggers Association, the IWA…. And there were large and small licence holders there. Not one of them at any point ever suggested expropriation. Again, perhaps if there had been a full discussion of accountability, a full discussion of continued transition funding or a discussion of pension bridging in a mean- ingful way, all of those people who have spent a year — admittedly behind closed doors — trying to assist this minister to get it right would be up here cheering today.

But they're not because all that discussion the minister had, he completely ignored and moved right to this legislation. That group who was assisting the minister would suggest today that they can find no justification for his taking back annual allowable cut to determine market. Mr. Chair, I am in favour of tenure reallocation. I am in favour of tenure reallocation of a substantial amount. But what this government has done — or I'm trying to get the government to explain to me that this isn't what they've done — is expropriated, and they've expropriated in the interests of a few at the expense of many.

If indeed that's not the case, tell me who will be at the table to determine the takeback. Just stand up and tell me: will the IWA be at the table? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, in ways that the member knows, the answer is an unreserved yes. But I'm puz- zled by the statement, "to have expropriated in the fa- vour of the few to the detriment of the many," which suggests to me that the member is arguing that those who are directly impacted by this expropriation, as she puts it, are on the positive end, and I guess we'll hear about that later in this debate.

There's no question that there's a balancing of inter- ests involved here. The member referred to a process that took place over the better part of a year and a half and that reaped good work, good progress, much of which is embedded in this reform package. The mem- ber won't, I'm sure, ever want to acknowledge that. But as it relates to a number of different issues, the work of that group has found its way into this package. Are the truck loggers jumping up and down as cheerleaders of the government? No.

But I did hear them say that rec- ognizing the competing interests that were involved is the right direction for the government to be headed in. I happen to take a degree of satisfaction from hearing that kind of comment from a group that represents 7,500 workers — direct workers. The member will choose the comments that she wishes to choose.

To be honest, I'm pleased that in work- ing with some of these groups and with the IWA, who made a very passionate and, I thought, effective argument around the need to look at pension bridging, we were able to come up with a process for the first time to deal with that head-on with real dollars. I know the member will speak to that when we get to that part of the bill. [1605] J.

MacPhail: I spent the weekend preparing for this legislation, and the job was made easier because I had the assistance of a lot of people — first nations compa- nies, which came as a surprise to me; people in the community who are the councillors and mayors of communities that will be directly and negatively im- pacted by that; and working people from the IWA, C E P , P P W C . T h e s e p o i n t s o f v i e w t h a t I a m p u t t i n g forward are theirs.

All three groups that spent the bet- ter part of a year trying to help this minister reorganize the forest industry feel completely betrayed by his ex- propriation — completely betrayed. It doesn't surprise me at all when people put their heart and soul into assisting this minister, often having to draw down on their own political capital to help this government, and then they get betrayed by it. What I'm trying to do now is…. When is he going to get them back to the table? Twenty percent is legis-

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5755 lated away. I can't for the life of me get the minister to tell me how this is going to work. We have dozens of licences that maybe one will be drawn down by…. Or 20 percent will be reallocated. I bet you there could be 40 percent reallocated, and the corollary licence won't have any reallocation or expropriation. Will community groups be there? Who's going to be at the table? Communities who are interested in having a community forest licence — will they be at the table? Will they be bidding? Who gets the 20 percent takeback? How does that process work? Hon.

M. de Jong: Well, the member is going to have to indulge my limited capacity by sticking to one question, or I'm going to miss some aspect of this. There is obviously a process involving the Crown, which has initiated this exercise, and the licensee, who is firstly and most directly impacted. Thereafter, the member has seen all of the material in the careful preparation she has done. The government has not been at all coy about what our expectations are with respect to the volumes that are reallocated and where we intend to see them reallocated to.

If the member believes that somehow I have been less than forthcom- ing in revealing all of that, then she should say so. But it is all there in the material — the volumes that are expected to be made available through auction, the volumes that would be available to community forests, the volumes that would be available to the woodlot pro- gram, the volumes that would be available to first na- tions. In fact, it's been very specific, and the process moving forward recognizes the fact that we need now to move ahead with the implementation of that blueprint.

The member is perhaps suggesting to me that the preferred route for her would be for government to unilaterally decide not just the volume involved but where it's going to come from, and execute on that without any discussion. That is certainly a practice that has been followed on occasion in the past. It is not my or the government's preferred route. J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. What happened in the past is that there were public hearings on takebacks, and everybody had input into takebacks. Those public hearings are gone now; they're no longer required.

I'm just trying to figure out what the government's plan is. For one, let's look at the West Fraser Group. They're going to be giving back 857,934 cubic metres. That is a huge amount of timber spread over a huge area. In that area there could be community interests who would want to have a say…. Oh, I'm sorry; that takeback is a huge area amongst an even bigger area. There could be a community working with their local mill, their local IWA, who says: "We want this part; this volume we want. It can be sustainable. It can sustain our communities. They're good-paying jobs." And maybe West Fraser says: "Oh no.

Hey, man, that's high-grade stuff. We're getting it. You're out of here. You're not getting that part." So who decides? Who's at the table? Where will the first nations interests begin and end? Where do the communities' interests begin and end? I mean, these are not new questions. I would have assumed there would have been a document — an outline, a manual — already about how negotiations will take place. That's all I'm asking. [1610] Hon. M. de Jong: I am not surprised by the nature of the presentation.

I also know full well that, had I laid out for the member in excruciating detail precisely what volumes were going to be used for what purpose and with which groups, the argument would have been: "How dare you presume to move ahead without properly involving people." Of course there is going to be participation by community groups and by the Crown. The purpose of the exercise is to expand a commu- nity forest program. Surely that is something that en- gages the full participation of the communities in- volved, those that want to avail themselves of oppor- tunities.

The reality, of course, is that it's not been an issue because no government of the past has actually taken the steps necessary to put itself in a position where it can have those negotiations. No one is under- estimating the breadth or the enormity of the task that awaits us, but what we have here is a blueprint setting out what we want to achieve and a mechanism by which it can at last be achieved. J. MacPhail: The minister's defence is: "Oh well, no matter what I did, this person would complain." I'm just seeking detail. Maybe I'll break the questions down even smaller, then.

What's the analysis of employment impact of the taking back of the 20 percent that will be used in nego- tiations? Is employment impact a factor? Has the minis- ter done any work on the anticipated employment im- pacts of taking back 20 percent? Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this: the inclusion of the trust to which there is an allocation of $75 million signals in pretty clear terms the recognition on the part of the government that there is a transitional cost asso- ciated with placing our forest sector on a firmer eco- nomic footing.

That visits particularly acutely on the coast, and it visits upon workers in the processing sec- tor and potentially in the harvesting sector — both em- ployees of licensees and the contracting community. An analysis has been done, taking into account both the work that Dr. Pearse conducted for the gov- ernment just over a year ago and some of the discus- sions that have taken place bilaterally with labour or- ganizations like the IWA and at the larger table that was in place over the last year and a half. J. MacPhail: W e l l , g e e , m y r e s e a r c h w a s m u c h more productive than that.

One forest company said to me: "We've got 2,000 employees. Twenty percent means that 20 percent of those employees are gone." They'd thought that through.

5756 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 Has the minister done any employment impact on the 20 percent takeback? Is there a way of taking back 20 percent that affects employment less? [1615] Hon. M. de Jong: The thing I want to try and con- vey to this member, and she may — in fact, I'm certain, based on her comments of a moment ago — have al- ready made up her mind about this…. A timber reallo- cation does not equate with the timber disappearing. The fact that timber is available on the open market means just that. It is available to licensees, admittedly at market prices.

Those who would suggest that somehow the pres- entation of this Crown-owned fibre for use via a differ- ent mechanism automatically precludes any licensee from accessing that timber are just wrong. J. MacPhail: Just tell me on what the minister bases that. What analysis has he done to say that there won't be a loss of jobs? He just stood up and basically said how dare I assume that there would be a job loss. What analysis has he done to say that there won't be? Let me just tell you a piece of advice I received over the weekend about this public auction of timber.

This was from a group of people who are very suspicious about why the government is doing it the way it is — through legislation — because, this company group says, it won't have the effect that the minister claims it will have in terms of keeping all of the benefits in Brit- ish Columbia. The 20 percent takeback from licence holders will go up for public auction. That 20 percent at public auc- tion will then determine the price that the licence hold- ers will pay for the other 80 percent. That 20 percent at public auction is very key, but the price at auction will no longer be governed by Bill 13.

We use that for shorthand here. Bill 13 is the contractual relationship between the loggers and the licence holder. In my view, it's worked extremely well. Bill 13 is gone now. Bill 13 is red-circled. I'll sit down because the minister is making all sorts of faces. Is Bill 13 gone or not? Hon. M. de Jong: No. J. MacPhail: Will Bill 13 be gone? Is it red-circled? Hon. M. de Jong: No. J. MacPhail: So all of the contractors that operate now will be the Bill 13 contractors? Hon. M. de Jong: Two different questions.

Are Bill 13 contractors, over time, impacted by either the takeback or the regulatory changes that are contemplated and spelled out in the package for Bill 13? I think they will be, and part of our calculation has taken that into account. J. MacPhail: In fact, I predict that Bill 13 contractors will be red-circled and will be gone. That's what every- body out there in the industry thinks too. That is the prediction of everybody out there in the industry, both the contractors and the companies. Whatever contrac- tors are logging now…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Well, I have no idea.

The companies I talked to and the contractors I talked to didn't get into batting at each other. They were batting at the govern- ment. No company has suggested to me that it was their wish, and no contractor has suggested that they were anything other than efficient for the job. So, the contractors will be gone under Bill 13. The contractors left will be ones that will be working di- rectly with the large licence holders, who will have their fixed costs covered.

They will be out there bid- ding for timber, able to pay a higher price for timber on the log market at the auction because somebody else will be covering their fixed costs, and therefore the price will be artificially high. [1620] In fact, the price will be artificially high just as it is with small business timber sales now, where there are contractors who front in the bidding process for the large licence holders. Prices are artificially high in the small business timber sales now, but that's going to expand to the 20 percent. That 20 percent price will guide the rest of the 80 percent.

It really will mean more revenue having to be paid to the government and that this is really a grab for revenue. Perhaps the minis- ter could dissuade me of that premise. Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I don't know now whether the member is articulating views that were expressed to her or whether she is making it clear, through you in this debate, Mr. Chair, that she opposes a timber pric- ing system built around the auction of publicly owned timber. This is a system that quite frankly is designed for and will benefit the most efficient operators, and to that charge I plead guilty.

Whether it is in the process- ing division or in the harvesting division, whether it is a company crew or a contractor…. In the case of the contracting community, we have been very clear. The provisions of Bill 13 will be changed so that the rate test is tied to the market. If the member is express- ing the concerns of some around that principle, I have heard them.

But I must tell her, as I have been telling people for the better part of a year and a half, that the g o v e rnm e nt an d I are o f t he v i e w t hat we ne e d t o i n- crease our competitiveness and our efficiency, and the price for not doing so is a continuation of the trend we have seen over the last ten years. J. MacPhail: My job here is to figure out how this is going to work. It's on a hope and a prayer and "maybe negotiations will work" that so far I've had information. I'm suggesting that an expansion of a public auction that works on the basis of how it works now in the small business

section is an artificial market. It's got people fronting. It's got little guys fronting for the

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0331pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0331pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	436f8d3609ab7f6a51b484a09060fdeb026becc5

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).