British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, December 16, 2003

H1216pm-08

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 19, Number 8 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 Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen 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 ..........................................................................................................................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 Hans ard 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 Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

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 Hill 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-Lillooet 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)............................................................................. Chilliwack-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-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ........................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L).............................................................. Nanaimo-Parksville 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, Hon. 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 ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian 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 Whittred 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 Collins 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 Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes ....................................................................................................................... .............................................................. 8385 Hubert Beyer J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Campbell Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 8385 Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 8386 Psychiatric emergency facility at Royal Jubilee Hospital I. Chong Youth violence P. Wong Reopening of Alpha Processing plant R.

Visser Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8387 U.S. softwood lumber proposal J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong Government spending on health care advertising J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Harvest of beetle-damaged trees in North Thompson area K. Krueger Hon. M. de Jong Government action on forest industry labour dispute P. Nettleton Hon. G.

Campbell Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 8390 Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8391 Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail P. Nettleton J. Kwan D. Hayer R. Harris R. Visser H. Long G.

Trumper Hon. G. Bruce Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 8406 Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8437 Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99) Royal Assent to Bills.......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 8437 Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99)

8385 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. [1405] Tributes HUBERT BEYER J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportu- nity to, I hope, bring condolences from all of the legis- lative members in the passing of Hubert Beyer, who was part of the British Columbia legislative press gal- lery for what seemed like decades. I think it actually was decades. Mr. Beyer passed away on the weekend at the age of 68. Those of us who are from my class, the class of '91, know Hubert very well, and those who are from classes prior to that would remember him as well.

He always took a unique point of view in reporting on the Legislature. He always took a point of view that defended the communities outside of the large, urban population areas. From wh at I understand from the family, he kept his spirits bright right to the very end and kept a very sharply critical pencil there to com- ment on the comings and goings of the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of all Mem- bers of the Legislative Assembly in asking you to send condolences to Mr. Beyer's family on our behalf. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. So ordered. Hon. G.

Campbell: It's unquestionable that Hubert Beyer made a major contribution to public life in Brit- ish Columbia. It's not unusual for those of us in this room or who are actively in volved in the precincts in Victoria to lose track of the fact that what we do has huge impacts on people in ea ch corner of this province — f r o m F o r t N e l s o n t o C r e s t o n , f r o m P o r t H a r d y t o Abbotsford. Hubert Beyer was a man who constantly kept that in mind, constantly referred to a fundamental set of values, which are Canadian values. As you know, he came here from Germany.

He was always proud of his heritage, but he was even more proud to be a Cana- dian. He was even more proud to live in a country that encouraged debate, that encouraged discussion and that reminded each citizen that they have a role to play in public life — and that public life was a vital part of our lives and a vital part of what defines our country. In 1995 during the separatist vote, he personally bought a ticket to Quebec for the We Love Canada rally.

He wrote very passionately about how important that was and what a meaningful day that was for him, as a Canadian, as someone who had come to our coun- try from Germany and someone who had been able to contribute. So from writing about local politics, municipal poli- tics in Victoria, to the grand reach of provincial politics to international responses to both Canada and the val- ues we all share, Hubert Beyer was a broadcaster in the best sense of the word. He broadcast his values, and he was never afraid to tell us exactly what he thought.

I can remember a couple of times when Hubert took me out to lunch just so he could explain what we should really be doing. I can tell you that he did that with gen- erosity and with a sense of commitment. So to his family — because at these times it's most difficult for families, particularly at this time of year — to Eleanore, to his children Patricia, Charles and Gary, to all of his family… I know that our hearts go out to them, our prayers go out to them and our thanks go out to them, because they le t Hubert Beyer contribute as he did to public life in our great province.

I know that we all join in sending our best and our prayers to his family. Introductions by Members R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a child- hood friend — a very young fellow, of course. I knew him when we shared a clas s in elementary school. I have a great many friends in the forest industry, but Lawrence Pillon, who went to school with me as a child…. I don't see him as often these days, but it's cer- tainly great that he's able to join us here in the House. Lawrence Pillon — would the House please make him welcome. [1410] Hon. G.

Plant: I am told that John and Iris Swystun are here from Saskatchewan, I believe, visiting their daughter Corinne, who is a hard-working and diligent legislative counsel in the Ministry of Attorney General — obviously another product of a province that has produced an unbelievable number of great Canadian lawyers and one amazing Minister of Finance. I hope the House will please make the Swystuns welcome. Hon. S. Bond: Actually, today I would like to rec- ognize someone in the chamber who has reached a significant milestone.

I thin k anytime someone is able to say they are half a century old, it deserves recogni- tion. Today I know you'll want to join me in congratu- lating the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, who is celebrating his nifty fiftieth birthday. Hon. G. Campbell: I'd just like to recognize some- one who has made a major contribution, certainly to our caucus and to me personally. Mike McDonald, our director of communication, will be leaving for other opportunities, moving to a new life. Mike started work- ing with me back in 1992, when I was the mayor of the c i t y o f V a n c o u v e r .

H e h a d b e e n a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r n i n 1992 as well, and he then came and started working with me. He's been with our caucus since I came here, a long time ago now. I'm glad he's seen new opportuni- ties unfold before him. I know he's looking forward to spending a lot more time with his daughter Charlotte. I wish I could spend more time with Charlotte as well. I

8386 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 k n o w a l l o f u s w i l l w a n t t o g i v e M i k e o u r b e s t . H e ' s been a mentor; he's been a friend; he's someone who's always been there for us. I know we all wish him not just a great holiday season but a great future. Hon. L. Reid: I, too, would like to welcome to the precinct today Donna Clark. She's visiting from Tsaw- wassen, British Columbia, and she's the finest aunt in the world to my little girl Olivia. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY FACILITY AT ROYAL JUBILEE HOSPITAL I. Chong: Earlier today the Minister of State for Mental Health and the memb ers representing Saanich South, Victoria–Beacon Hill and Victoria-Hillside, along with myself, attended a very important event at Victoria's Royal Jubilee Hospital: the official ground- breaking of the psychiatri c emergency facility. This new $1.4 million psychiatric emergency care unit will be built for the treatment of people suffering from mental health crises.

Many people continue to speak out to raise aware- ness of mental illness and how it affects our communi- ties and our families. When in opposition, the Premier often spoke about this issu e. He made a commitment that, once elected, we would revitalize the mental health system in our provin ce and that mental health issues would no longer be overshadowed by other health care demands. H e r e i n V i c t o r i a m a n y o f u s w e r e t o u c h e d b y y e t another painful event.

In February 2000 Todd Thomas, the son of Donna and Peter Thomas, committed suicide in New York City, where he had been suffering from a mental illness. Many of us know Donna, a successful businesswoman and a hard-working community leader. The shock of this tragedy left Donna in a daze. How would she deal with the pain? What healing ser- vices were available? Why did this happen? Where does one go to understand mental illness, and when will somebody do more for those suffering? All these questions motivated Donna towards a vision.

That was to continue to raise awareness about mental illness, to support a new care unit where those suffering could seek help and be treated with dignity and respect, and to ensure that something good came out of her personal loss. Donna understood the impor- tance of providing the appropriate care in an appropri- ate setting.

She also understood that one's emotional well-being can be greatly enhanced and improved by being in a less stressful environment than a hospital emergency room. [1415] Through Donna's generous initial donation, estab- lished well over a year ago, she inspired others to step forward and to also raise funds that would improve emergency mental health se rvices in Victoria. The Courtnall Celebrity Classic this past summer is just one example of that. Today Donna saw her vision and idea become a reality at the groundbreaking ceremony.

I know Donna and her family will be there again next year to cut the ribbon at the opening of the facility. YOUTH VIOLENCE P. Wong: It is with sadness in my heart that I rise to speak in the House today. A few weeks ago a promis- ing young student, Jomar Lanot, was brutally killed at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. People throughout the lower mainland are concerned about this kind of brutal violence by our youth. There is a need in the community for people to feel safe, and it is our responsibility to ensure that people do feel safe where they live and work.

Schools have already taken a leadership role with regard to the issue of youth violence and bullying. We as a government have learned a great deal through the safe schools task force. But it is a matter for the entire community. School is in session for seven hours a day and five days a week. It is after school that the community needs to come together to support our youth. Youth require special attention. It is a time in their lives when they're exploring the world around them. They're trying out new things, trying to find out where their boundaries are.

They're learning new id eas, new skills and how to cope with others in the world. It is our responsibility to ensure that we give them effective tools to deal with the conflict and the realities of today's society. We must give them opportunities to explore themselves and the world around them with- out resorting to violence. We as parents and elders are the ones they look up to. We as parents need to teach our children that violence is not the way to deal with conflict. With Christmas just ahead, I wish every British Columbian a safe and peaceful holiday season and a violence-free 2004.

REOPENING OF ALPHA PROCESSING PLANT R. Visser: Last February I rose to speak about the strength and resiliency in th e dreams of the people of Port Hardy and the employees of Alpha Processing. It was only days after, and they were sifting through the fire-ravaged remains of the community's largest em- ployer. I spoke about them coming together and about them standing up for thei r community and for the way they make their living. I spoke of their hope for the future and for their industry.

I have the pleasure of standing here, nearly nine months to the day later, to tell this House that the plant is now open again and the first of 175 women and men are proudly back to work. Out of the ashes great things can rise. On Saturday the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; company CEO, Keith Bulla; plant man- ager, John Bielka; myself; an d hundreds of community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8387 members cut the ribbon on what is now the largest and most sophisticated processing facility for farmed salmon in North America. Saturday was a great day for Port Hardy and, I believe, for this province. It was a great day because we were given a chance to behold a sense of pride and sheer joy on folks' faces as they opened their place of work to their town. We were given a chance to witness how much hope, opportunity and renewal mean to people.

We were given a chance to see that salmon aquaculture is really about people — real people — in small communities who want to go to work and raise their families in their own hometowns. After months of support and cooperation from Mayor Harry Mose and council and alternate facilities from Keltic Seafoods, the new plant is open and sits brightly shining across the bay from the community, reminding us all of the future and of what can happen if you work hard, pull together and stand up for what you believe in. I'm behind the people of Alpha Process- ing and this industry. The minister is behind those people.

The Premier is behind those people, and this government is behind those people. Merry Christmas, Port Hardy, and thank you. You've all earned all of our respect. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER PROPOSAL J. MacPhail: According to the Premier, 2003 was supposed to be the year of forestry.

Some year — thou- sands of forest workers out of work; communities in crisis; the government's agenda adrift; a softwood lumber proposal from the Americans that takes us backwards, especially for value-added producers. [1420] According to the Vancouver Island Association Of Wood Processors, the propos al will mean the end of specialty mills in B.C. and the jobs they provide — an end to them. The Minister of Forests has been very quiet about the American proposal. Will he break his silence today and assure forest workers that he won't sign on a deal that will drive the value-added sector out of business? Hon.

M. de Jong: To the member: I'll tell her the same thing I said at what I was told was the largest chamber of commerce breakfast meeting in Prince George's history a few hours ago, and that is this. We have a proposal. We are studying that proposal. We are consulting with stakeholders right across Brit- ish Columbia, and we are discussing the terms of that proposal with governments right across Canada. We have embarked upon a set of reforms in British Co- lumbia designed to revitalize British Columbia's num- ber one industry.

We are going to continue with that, and we are going to ensure that no trade deal repre- sents an obstacle to doing what we set out as a gov- ernment to do, and that is revitalizing B.C.'s number one industry. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: My, those are soft words compared to what this minister said in August of 2001, when he said i n t h i s H o u s e : " W e ' r e n o t i n f a v o u r o f a r e t u r n t o a quota-based managed trade system." That was then. I remind the minister that he said he wouldn't accept a deal on entrenched quotas .

Not only does the Ameri- can proposal do just that, but the new quotas are worse than the status quo. British Columbia value-added producers and forest workers are lining up agai nst the deal. Let me quote from the president of Seed Timber, a value-added pro- ducer in Campbell River. "A quota will lock everyone into their current position after two years of punishing duties. There will be no new entrants, no expansion, no new capital and no new employment. Smaller compa- nies will be consumed for their quota." Why not go back to the words of August 2001?

Rather than now just taking orders from big forestry CEOs, will the Minister of Forests commit today to consult with communities and value-added manufac- turers who are saying this deal will kill jobs, innovation and investment in forestry? Hon. M. de Jong: That's what we're doing. That's why I was in Nanaimo yesterday. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The minister listened to the question. Let's listen to the an- swer. Hon. M. de Jong: That's why I was in Nanaimo yesterday. It's why I was in Prince George earlier to- day. It's why I'm going to Kamloops tomorrow.

It's why I'm going to be in Cranbrook the day after that. If the member wants to turn this into some sort of a partisan debate, let me say this to the member. Let me share with her…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. de Jong: Let me share with her what I think she is actually hearing but chooses, for the pur- poses of this forum, not to share with members. There are individuals, companies, within the value-added sector who are saying precisely what that member has said. J. MacPhail: Many of them. Hon. M. de Jong: Now we're agreeing, for God's sake, Mr. Speaker.

8388 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. M. de Jong: They are saying precisely what this member has just relayed to the House — that this i s n o t a d e a l t h e y w o u l d c h o o s e t o e m b r a c e , a n d t h e y don't wish the government to do so. Then there are members of the value-added community who are say- ing: "We need a deal. We're not crazy about this one, but it will allow us to…." J. MacPhail: Name them. Hon.

M. de Jong: The member says: "Name one." Let's talk about Jackpine resources, who haven't been shy about saying publicly that unless there is a deal, they'll be putting people ou t of work. There is a price associated with signing on to a proposal, but let us all understand this as well: ther e is a price associated with walking away from that proposal. The undertaking we have made as a government and that the Premier has m a d e r e p e a t e d l y i s t h a t w e w i l l c o n s i d e r , f i r s t a n d foremost, the best interests of British Columbia and B .

C . ' s n u m b e r o n e i n d u s t r y b e f o r e w e s i g n o n t o a n y deal. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question. [1425] J. MacPhail: In August of 2001 — two and a half years ago — this same member, with great bravado, said: "We won't sign on to a quota-based system." Then, also that same year, the Minister of Forests reas- sured British Columbians that the softwood lumber dispute would be settled by Christmas — Christmas 2001. Today he stands here and waffles again and again. He promised that his government's changes to for- est policy would get a deal.

He said that he would take B.C.'s forest economy to great heights. Instead, he's taken it to the edge of disaster, only to make the Americans happy. He promised new hope, new jobs, more opportunity. He's delivered nothing, absolutely nothing, and he continues today to deliver nothing. Here's what the general manager of Shawood Lumber in Langley said: "The value-added sector can- not be expected to survive under this tentative a deal. The government of B.C. has always talked about want- ing to support the value-added sector.

This is your opportunity to stand up for us." Will the minister just stand up today for Shawood Lumber and every other value-added producer, who are flooding us with letters here in British Columbia and who say this deal will kill their businesses and the jobs they provide? Stand up and support them today. Hon. M. de Jong: At the risk of again offending the member by showing some degree of…. Interjection. Hon. M. de Jong: It's not just the value-added sec- tor that has got problems with this proposal. I don't know if she's chosen to be selective about who she's listening…. Interjection. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. de Jong: You know, I hope this member understands that we're at a point where we as a prov- ince have a pretty significant decision to make about a proposal. Interjection. Hon. M. de Jong: The member wants to put words in everyone's mouth, and she wants to say one thing or the other, but the reality is this. We said to British Co- lumbians that we thought we owed the forest- dependent communities of British Columbia a duty to go out and explore whether or not there was a negoti- ated solution possible.

We are in the process of actually trying to determine whether the proposal that has emerged from those negotiations is one that is suitable and worthy of acceptance. You know what, Mr. Speaker? It may be or it may not be, and we're in the process of conducting a re- sponsible consultation. If that is something that offends this member — the very notion that we would actually go out and talk to the people who are going to be im- pacted by this deal — it doesn't surprise me, because in 1996 they didn't talk to anyo ne. They just let the deal happen, and it offended all kinds of people.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE ADVERTISING J. Kwan: The Premier campaigned in the last elec- tion on a promise to never run television ads telling British Columbians what a good job the government is doing on health care — one more broken promise. The Minister of Health has refused to tell the media how much the campaign is costing. In fact, he didn't tell anyone how much the camp aign was costing and, when it got started, was telling reporters instead that they weren't asking the right questions. To the Minister of Health Services: how much did the ads cost? What is he hiding? Hon. C.

Hansen: There is a budget for communica- tions in government that is vested with the public af- fairs bureau, which is — I would remind the member — significantly less than the budget for government communications that was in place when she was in government and in cabinet. Interjection.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8389 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: The commitment that we made to British Columbians is that we would not engage in the kind of partisan political advertising that we saw from the previous government. In fact, I recall one particular ad campaign that featured, as the star actress in the ad, the current Leader of the Opposition, who at the time was the Minister of Health. As we go around this province of British Columbia, we find individuals who are saying to us: why are we not providing them… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon.

C. Hansen: …with some of the facts so that they can actually make up their own mind for them- s e l v e s a s t o w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g i n t h e h e a l t h c a r e s y s - tem? So we've gone out and have engaged in a com- munications process… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …to provide them with the facts. They can read those facts, they can see them on televi- sion, and individuals can make up their minds for themselves. [1430] Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J.

Kwan: If the minister wants to play games and not come out with how much it cost in terms of the ads, let me just ask the Premier, then — the same Premier who promised never to run ad s…. It is c le ar from the television commercials and the mailer that the Premier is distorting the facts in preparation for the govern- ment's fight with the doctors. Why won't the Premier just tell us why he has broken his promise not to run ads, and why won't he just come clean and tell British Columbians how much those ads cost? What is he hid- ing, Mr. Speaker? Hon. C.

Hansen: I know that this member has been a member of this chamber for the same period of time as I have, and I know, as well…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. We'll continue when we have order in the House. Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the member from Mount Pleasant was not listening to my answer, so I'll start over. I know that th e member from Mount Pleas- ant has been a member of this chamber for as long as I have, since 1996. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Hon. C. Hansen: I know that all of us know how information about government expenditures gets ta- bled.

They get tabled in pu blic accounts, and they can be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. That has been a tradition in this chamber for many, many years. There is an opportunity for that member, or any other member in this chamber, to review the expendi- tures of government at the appropriate time. If the member would like to go back to the estimates blue book that was tabled in this chamber last February, she will see the budget that's been put aside for the public affairs bureau.

She will find out that budget is signifi- cantly less than it was when she was in cabinet and that we are making sure those dollars get spent wisely to make sure that good, fact-based information gets provided to the citizens of British Columbia. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. HARVEST OF BEETLE-DAMAGED TREES IN NORTH THOMPSON AREA K. Krueger: The Leader of the Opposition can prat- tle on all she likes about forest issues, when her gov- ernment did nothing but damage our forest industry in their whole sorry decade in office.

I have real constitu- ents to represent, who actua lly work in the forest in- dustry and who have been very much negatively af- fected by the Americans' behaviour and by other things that have happened — for example, the damage that Mother Nature did in my constituency this summer, the terrible forest fires, the devastation of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. There is a silver lining to all this. We have four mil- lion cubic metres of wood to be brought out of the bush in the North Thompson Valley this winter and by June 30, 2004, before the beetles fly again.

The need to har- vest these logs and boost the local economy has led me to seek a community salvage licence from the Minister of Forests for the Barriere–Louis Creek area, and I would like an update from the Minister of Forests for my constituents on our prospects with regard to that application, please. Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, those discussions are pro- ceeding, and they are obviously enhanced by where we are in terms of the takeback provisions, the 20 percent in those negotiations.

I can say to this member, and will likely repeat in Kamloops tomorrow when I'm there, that by the latter part of the spring of next year, 2004, we hope to be in a position to begin actually develop- ing some of those and implementing the community

8390 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 forest program and the expanded woodlot program. The member is quite right: those new opportunities that the forest revitalization plan spoke to are now in fact taking place on the ground. I for one am very pleased about it. [1435] GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTE P. Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, I'm not alone in the opin- ion that government intervention not be part of the collective bargaining equation to be viewed as a ready alternative in solving private industry disputes.

This government, however, is apparently creating an envi- ronment in which the collective bargaining process can't work as intended. People are suspicious of a gov- ernment that's proven its desi re to chip away at hard- won collective bargaining ga ins and benefits in this province, a government that is intent on taking B.C. back to a time when average working British Columbi- ans had little or no benefits or rights. Can the Premier reassure B.C.'s forestry workers that this is not the intent of this pre-Christmas legisla- tive action? And if not, how does the Premier see it playing out? Hon. G.

Campbell: I can tell the member that the reason the government is doing this today is that in fact the union came to us and said they would request our help. The FIR said that they would request our help. We felt there was a reason, in fact, for us to work with both the union and the FIR. I think it was important, when Mr. Haggard was at the announcement on Sun- day that we would be bringing people back, that he thanked the government for this task. It's important for us to know that this is about for- est workers. It's about their families. It's about their communities.

When both labour and business come to us and say, "Will government please assist us in com- ing to a resolution that will protect jobs, that will en- courage long-term competition in the industry," I think it's important for government to respond. [End of question period.] Introduction and First Reading of Bills COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act. Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 99 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr.

Speaker, right now a work stoppage in the coastal forest sector is having a devas- tating effect on families and communities on Vancou- ver Island and along the coast of British Columbia. It is a l s o h a v i n g a n i m p a c t o n t h e p r o v i n c e ' s r e p u t a t i o n i n international markets. Last week government met with representatives from Forest Industrial Rela tions and the IWA to try to see if there was anything we could do to get the parties into productive negotiations.

We heard that to ensure long-term viability and to support good jobs in the coastal forestry sector, a new collective agreement needs to be in place. We also heard that neither group could restart bar- gaining on its own. The

partie s told me that if this dis- pute continues into the new year, it could well last un- til summer. We heard both the union and the employ- ers ask for government's help to get the parties back to the bargaining table. We told them that government won't do it alone. They must be part of the solution. The Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act provides for an im- mediate return to work un der the terms of the collec- tive agreement that expired in June 2003. A mediation arbitration commissioner will finalize a new collective agreement by May 31, 2004.

This agreement will take into account the economic viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest in- dustry, as well as labour relations stability and inter- ests of unions and employees. The commissioner will have extensive authority to use fact-finding, mediation, conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration to conclude a collective agreement. Both the IWA and the FIR agree this legislation is required to assist them in getting a new collective agreement.

With the help pr ovided by government in introducing this bill, the pa rties can return to the bar- gaining table and reach a new collective agreement to revitalize the coastal forestry industry. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, while we distribute the bill and members have a chance to peruse its con- tents, we will take a ten-minute recess. An Hon. Member: Fifteen. Mr. Speaker: Fifteen? We will take a 15-minute recess, and we will ring the division bells to recall members. The House recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 3 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. G.

Bruce: By leave, I move that the bill be permitted to proceed through all stages this day. J. MacPhail: The opposition in supporting this re- quest does not have any intention to filibuster this leg- islation; however, we do have many questions. Prior to

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8391 granting leave, we seek assurance that we will be per- mitted to ask all of our questions today. Hon. G. Collins: I do know that under standing orders, the House would normally adjourn at 6 p.m. today. If members opposite require more time to com- plete their work, then obviously we have no difficulty in having the House sit past six this evening, and we would be willing to accommodate that. Leave granted. Second Reading of Bills COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 99 be read a second time. Mr.

Speaker, in introducin g Bill 99, it is important to note the seriousness and the reluctance that gov- ernments have in intervening in private labour dis- putes. It is only with the greatest hesitancy that gov- ernment is getting involved in a private labour dispute. Let everyone understand that while this legislation responds to a specific request from the people involved in this dispute, we had to look beyond the parties themselves to the very real impact of a lengthy work stoppage in the forests. The fact that we are here today underscores the importance of the forest industry in British Columbia.

This industry is vital to families, communities and small businesses that depend on the forest to provide good jobs. A healthy forest sector also helps pay for the vital social programs and contributes to our economy as a whole. Most of all, we are here today to lend our support to the people who work in the coastal forests — to the p e o p l e a t J . W . B e r r y T r u c k i n g L t d . i n P o r t A l b e r n i , a family company that has been in business for more than 30 years. They have 13 employees and a fleet of trucks hauling chips, boxed logs, gravel and rock.

To the people at Falt Towing, another family company that has been running tugboats in Cowichan Bay for more than 50 years. To the 200 people at the Field Sawmills near Courtenay, a mill that produces high- value lumber products for the Japanese market, and to the 45 employees at the Olympic Forest Products Ltd. log sort in Powell River. All these employees and the thousands more IWA members affected by this dispute have families. These families live in communities that depend on the forest industry. B.C.'s coastal forest region provides almost 100,000 direct and indirect jobs.

It provides enough taxes to account for one of every five dollars spent on health care in B.C. — or enough to pay for the education of almost 300,000 children from kindergarten through grade 12 every year. The coastal logging industry employs some 11,000 people mostly in highly skilled and well-paid occupa- tions. In the year 2000 forest products manufacturing employed more than 12,000 workers — 6,700 in lumber and the other solid wood products, the remainder in pulp and paper. The coastal forest industry supports more commu- nities than all other business sectors combined.

It con- sists of 20 million hectares of the most productive for- est land in Canada. In the year 2000 it produced forest products valued at $3.2 billion, most sold in foreign markets, mainly to the United States and Japan. [1505] According to the forest expert, Dr. Peter Pearse, the coast has higher costs and lower returns on investment than other B.C. producers and other U.S. competitors. Dr. Pearse found that the industry in its present form and on its present path is financially unsustainable.

With much of the industry still geared to harvesting and processing old-growth timber, the costs of logging and processing on the coast are more than 40 percent higher than the average of all other regions. If we can find a way to turn that around and mod- ernize the coastal forest sect or, then there is a tremen- dous future in forestry on the coast of British Colum- bia. In a vibrant and productive forestry sector, we could see new capital investment of up to $1 billion over the course of the next ten years, according to a recent industry report.

But to create a robust forest industry, cost savings need to be found and productiv- ity needs to improve. On th at score, there is agreement between the union and the companies. How we get there is the challenge, and this is where government can assist. The Coastal Forest In- dustry Dispute Settlement Ac t ends the current work stoppage and provides a process to conclude a new collective agreement. Upon this legislation coming into effect, IWA members will return to work under the terms of the previous colle ctive agreement.

The con- tract dispute will be resolved through a mediation- arbitration process that will consider the economic vi- ability of the industry. A mediation-arbitration commissioner will be ap- pointed to resolve all issues in dispute and conclude a new agreement by May 31, 2004.

The commissioner's terms of reference require him to consider the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consis- tent with the economic viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest industry in both the short and the long term, the importance of good labour-management relations in the coastal forest industry, and the interests of trade unions and employ ees. In carrying out these tasks, the commissioner will have extensive authority to use fact-finding, mediation, conciliation and, if nec- essary, arbitration to conclude a collective agreement.

When I met with the IW A and the FIR last week, both told me they wanted to reach a new collective agreement, and neither wanted a work stoppage. The union and the employer fu lly understand that the coastal forest industry needs to make significant struc- tural changes, and they kn ow there would be a new agreement in place eventua lly. They had already en- gaged the services of Don Munroe earlier on as a facili- tator. But even with all of these elements in place, the

8392 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 parties were unable to reach a collective agreement and have requested government's assistance. The union and the employers understand the pro- cess and have agreed that Donald Munroe will take on the role of mediation-arbitration commissioner. I think commendation is in order for both the union and the employers for accepting a process that puts families and communities first. As I have stated, government's

part is to assist the parties in getting back to the table. Hopefully, that in itself will lead to an agreement. If not, Mr. Munroe will be empowered to arbitrate on outstanding issues. Having that finality is important. We have only to look back to 1997 to see what happens when these dis- putes are allowed to linger and positions become en- trenched. That was when a di spute in the pulp sector shut down the Crofton mill for ten months. At the end of the day, everyone lost — the employees, the com- pany, the community and most of the families that lived there. This is not a scenario we want to see re- peated.

I should be clear that the simple fact of a request for legislation would not normally be enough to overcome our reluctance to intervene in the course of private sec- tor collective bargaining, bu t looking at the nature of the industry, the amount of harm a prolonged strike would produce and the economic potential of this in- dustry, we are providing the assistance the parties have told us is needed to conclude a new agreement.

Bill 99 is presented today in the spirit of the season, which is the spirit of giving, and both parties have done that in order to help rejuvenate our forestry sector and provide a brighter future for our families and our communities. I have moved second reading of Bill 99, the Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act. [1510] J. MacPhail: I rise to oppose Bill 99, and I do so given the comments that this minister has just made. The spirit of giving. He says we're here under the guise of a spirit of giving. That doesn't explain why we're here today.

The first question this mi nister needs to answer is: why are we here today? We have two parties who stood up on the stage with the Premier in a nice photo op — a pre-Christmas, pre-vacation photo op for the Premier — with both parties stating their willingness to come to an agreement: Duncan Davies, president of the Forest Industrial Relations, and Dave Haggard, na- tional president of the IWA. Both of them were stand- ing there saying: "We both want an agreement." So what are we doing here today? Why are we recalling the Legislature?

Why is this minister ramming through legislation when both par- ties have said they want an agreement? Is there some- thing wrong with their characters — those two people's or the Premier's character — that they need the force of legislation to do what's right and what they have ad- mitted is right and what they've acknowledged they want, which is to get a collec tive agreement? Or is this some sort of southern U.S. state, where the ward bosses first come in and make the decisions and then the Leg- islature rubber-stamps them? Is that what we're doing here today? You bet it is.

Both the IWA and the fo rest industry employer group, which we'll call FIR, have made it clear that they're willing to go back to the table and try and nego- tiate an agreement. They're big boys; they're big men. They've been through this many times before. What is the government doing? Why are we here? I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. Both parties have indicated that failing the first preferab le option, they will accept binding arbitration. In fact, many a collective agree- ment ends in binding arbitration because the parties agree to go to binding arbitration. Yet here we are to- day.

The minister says he's so reluctant to interfere in collective bargaining. What balderdash. I think this about the eighth time he has interfered in collective bargaining. He has set a record in North America as a Minister of Labour for interfering in collective bargain- ing, always on the side of the employer, and here we are again today. He protests and says he's reluctant to do so.

Well, here we are in yet another emergency ses- sion — gee, we weren't supposed to have these emer- gency sessions, were we? — of the Legislature called by this government in order for it to bring down its legislative hammer and impose an agreement. Let's be clear: this is imposing an agreement. This legislation will come as a great surprise to I W A w o r k e r s , h u n d r e d s o f w h o m I h a v e t a l k e d t o i n the last three days. J. Bray: Hundreds? J. MacPhail: Yes, hundreds. How many has the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked to? Zero.

It will come as a great surprise, the explanatory note of this legislation: "This Bill settles the current coastal forest industry dispute and provides for the conclusion of a new or revised collective agreement between the parties." It's th e hammer. It's imposing a collective agreement. There is absolutely no question about it, and we know this is the government's pre- ferred way of doing business. [1515] My gosh, this minister is really going to be accused of being coquettish once too often. "Oh, I don't want to do this. I'm just horrified that I have to do this." No- body believes him anymore.

His coquettish reluctance is turning into faded, over -the-hill cooperation by the — I'm thinking of my parliamentary language here — opening up for all of his attributes to be used coopera- tively, a government that do es the bidding of employ- ers once again. That's what this minister has done. In fact, we also know that they were actually salivating over interfering in two disputes, not just one. Mr. Palmer — Vaughn Palmer, the Vancouver Sun columnist — h a s i t r i g h t .

H o w e v e r , i t ' s b e e n o n t h e Internet grapevine and the Internet labour gossip line since last Thursday night — what this government's

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8393 intention was. Mr. Palmer has it exactly accurate. He today notes: "…as government members prepare to intervene in this labour disp ute, they are also fretting about the one that got away. For this time last week, the front-of-mind strike for the Liberals was not the one in the forests. It was the strike on B.C. Ferries, and some government members were smacking their lips at the prospect of intervention." In fact, we heard of individual Liberal MLAs say- ing: "We're going to break that union once and for all." They meant the ferry worker s union.

Yeah, we had the quotes. "We're going to break them once and for all. We're going to bust that unio n." Well, it turns out that the union they really are going to bust is the IWA. This government's industrial relations are such a failure that the legislative hammer has become the norm so much that in its dispute, even the union lead- ership saw it as their only option. As the union mem- bers see this legislation, they, too, will have questions for their union leadership when they see the onerous nature of this legislation and how much they're losing.

There will be not only doubts, not only reservations, but opposition to this legislation. The message out of this le gislation to employers is crystal-clear. They don't have to bargain in good faith, because the B.C. Liberal government will come in and bail them out by imposing an employer-friendly con- tract. This bill is a clear indi cation that once again, un- der the B.C. Liberals, the employer wins. I had to sit here and steam when this minister introduced it at first reading and said that this gets IWA workers back to work. It doesn't get IWA wo rkers back to work.

There is nothing in this bill that gets IWA workers back to work. It contains no guarantee of a return to work. In fact, employers are telling workers — as of the last 24 hours — that they won't be recalled. The Che- mainus mill owned by Weyerhaeuser is telling its workers: "Oh, sorry, we're not calling you back until after the statutory holidays, because we don't want to pay you statutory holiday pay." That was a mill that was operating before the strike and had no plans for a s h u t d o w n a t t h i s t i m e o f year. Are they putting their workers back to work because of this legislation? No, they're not.

The minister was dead wrong, perhaps deliberately so, in saying that this returns IWA workers to work. It simply doesn't. What do IWA members get from this deal? Well, they get their old master ag reement to convince them to go back to work, but they only get it till May 2004. For much of that time, many forestry workers will be off for the winter slowdown anyway. They'll be on layoff. This isn't giving IWA workers access to their master agreement — not at all. IWA workers will get EI. That's what they'll get. At most, getting a return to their master agreement is a Pyrrhic victory for IWA members.

By the time many millworkers are headed back to the job in spring, it will be a matter of mere weeks before the hammer of the commissioner's binding arbitration comes down. In the interim, the commissioner has the power to make interim agreements to weaken provisions of the master agreement. Right here in the legislation the commis- sioner has all sorts of opportunities to impose different wages and working conditions — lesser so, you can guarantee it — on IWA workers. [1520] You know, Mr. Don Munroe is a very experienced conciliator, mediator and arbitrator, but he's not new to the forest industry.

He's not new to being a commis- sioner, to trying to resolve these disputes. I spoke with a couple of IWA workers today, who remembered clearly the last time a Social Credit government inter- vened in bargaining — in 1986. Now, the government of the day didn't do what this government does, which is just — by the big legislative hammer — to impose arbitration conditions. It appointed an industrial in- quiry commission, which is of course available to this minister as well, under the Labour Relations Code — easily available. Mr.

Munroe, a well-respected person, sat as part of that three-person industri al inquiry commission in 1986. What happened then, Mr. Speaker? Well, the in- dustrial inquiry commission made recommendations, and the union got to vote on it. They voted 98 percent against Mr. Munroe's recommendations. So here's what this government is doing. They don't want IWA workers to have a vote. That's what this is about, pure and simple. Don't give them a vote. Don't let them have a say in their future. That's what this legislation is about, pure and simple.

God forbid that the thousands of IWA workers, who have worked in this industry for decades, ge t a say in their future. Of course the companies don't get a say either. Those smaller companies are fretting that they, too, are hav- ing their voting rights taken away. Here we have a government-imposed-by- legislation commissioner who can make interim agreements to weaken provis ions of the master agree- ment and then can finally impose, through binding arbitration, a weakened ag reement. The workers and the employers get not a whit of say. Well, what do the employers get? What do you know?

Right in the legis- lation are terms of reference that give the industry ex- actly what it's asking for. Here are the terms of reference in the legislation, and if this isn't pro-indust ry, I don't know what is. Here's what the terms of refe rence listed in the legisla- tion say. It starts off with the need that the commis- sioner has to consider (

a) the need for terms and condi- tions that are "consistent wi th the economic viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest industry in both the short and long term ." That's exactly what the industry wanted, and they go t it right there in legisla- tion. The terms under which the commissioner has to operate also reference the importance of good labour management relationships in the coastal industry and the interests of employees and trade unions. But nowhere in this legislation is there any mention of the importance of communities.

Those forest- dependent communities are th e biggest losers of all under this government. I can hardly wait for those Lib- eral MLAs who come from forest-dependent communi-

8394 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ties to stand up and say where the interests of forest- dependent communities are in this legislation. Dead silence. Nothing. So they're the biggest losers of all. With each passing year, the number of communities and people who are losing out in this province grows at a staggering rate. The fact that we are here in this chamber today, once again being called back for a special session to legislate another collective ag reement, is a testament to this Premier's failure — his failed economic agenda.

Really, the reason why this government has intervened in this dispute when there was absolutely no neces- sity…. He could have said to the men: "Be big men and do what you both agreed to — bargain." The reason why the government is ordering this group back is because they're desperate for the revenue, because of the Premier's failed economic agenda. They're desper- ate because the Premier has a failed industrial relations strategy.

As important as anything else, the Premier has failed in settling the soft wood lumber dispute, and he has failed in his attempt to revitalize forest policy. [1525] I found it astounding — the Minister of Forests' answers about the softwood lu mber dispute today. It's way, way more important in our economy than any- thing else, and the Minister of Forests has no answers. He blusters. He turns beet -red, and he should turn beet-red with embarrassment because he has no an- swers, he's got no resolution and he's being forced to eat his own words on how he says he would resolve the dispute.

Let's start with this government's failed economic agenda, because that's really why we're here. Under this Premier's leadership, B.C.'s fiscal and economic situation has gotten much, much worse. The Premier promised a new era of hope and opportunity, and what have British Columbians got instead? Deficit at historic levels. The debt continues to climb, and B.C.'s economy is stagnating. More than 200,000 British Columbians are unem- ployed, and the province is receiving considerably less revenue in sales and corporate taxes. We saw that in the second quarter report.

The only reason this gov- ernment can say it's on track to meet its $2.3 billion deficit figure is because of higher-than-expected reve- nues from natural gas and th e Crowns and actual reve- nue from Crowns such as B.C. Rail. It's turning a much higher-than-expected profit. The Premier's economic plan has failed miserably. His high income tax cuts did not pay for themselves, they did not stimulate econ omic growth, and they did not result in more money for public services.

More than two years into the brave new era, the net result for British Columbians has been high unemployment, big deficits, slow growth, lost public services and squan- dered public assets. Here are the telling statistics of the new era. Here's what they are — government never likes to say this: real average hourly wage down in B.C. by 2.4 percent since 2002, the worst in Canada; average weekly wages down from $683 a week in December 2002 to $680 in August 2003 — so hourly wages down, weekly wages down. In 2002, the first full year of the new era, real disposable personal income was down by 0.2 percent.

Under the NDP the average ye arly growth of real dis- posable personal income was 1.4 percent. Wow, and they're considered good economic managers. Wow. Working families have really benefited from this gov- ernment — not. British Columbia posted the most significant de- cline in the country in non- residential construction in the third quarter of this year — down 8.8 percent in Vancouver, and that's the ho tbed. In the province as a whole, non-residential construction is down by 9.4 per- cent. Vehicle sales — down in September 2003 by 1,100 vehicles from a year earlier.

More than 1/5 of the total Canadian decline in vehicle sales occurred right here in British Columbia. [1530] Unemployment is up from 2001. The north coast unemployment rate is 10.6 percent; the Cariboo unem- ployment rate, 9.8 percent; Kootenay unemployment rate, 9.4 percent; lower mainland, 8 percent; Vancouver Island unemployment rate, 8.6 percent. I know this government loves to talk about the jobs it created.

I noted they made a big fuss in October when jobs were created, but when the unemployment rate in Novem- ber actually fell because people were leaving the prov- ince — that's the only reason the unemployment rate fell; 5,000 workers left the workforce, and not one new job was created — there was silence from the Liberals and silence from the Vancouver Sun , I might add, as well. Funny how the Vancouver Sun only likes to report on economic news that doesn't damage the B.C. Liber- als — absolutely nothing on the fact that people are fleeing the British Columbia workforce.

Well, here's what happened to total employment between August 2002 and August 2003. Employment growth was a meagre 1.1 percent. What was the aver- age employment growth during the NDP's ten years? It was 2.1 percent. That's the decade of decline that the Liberals like to talk about — really. I bet you the Minis- ter of Labour won't be using that term in debate here, because their shameful two-year record on economic failure outpaces any other jurisdiction in Canada. Now, let's see about their failed labour relations agenda.

Since almost the day it was elected, this gov- ernment has gone to war with working people, inter- fering in the collective bargaining process to impose heavy-handed, one-sided legisl a t i o n . I n j u s t o v e r t w o years this government has torn up the contracts for tens of thousands of worker s, including professionals like the doctors. They've done all of that by a stroke of the legislative pen. The B.C. Liberal government has introduced legislation to retroactively cancel the con- tracts of health care workers, including doctors.

They've cancelled teachers' and college instructors' contracts, cancelled arbitration for the physicians and imposed a collective agreemen t on transit workers. In fact, this government's record on industrial relations is so bad that it has actually been censured by the Inter-

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8395 national Labour Organization, a UN body, for its la- bour policies. Here we are today in what I think is the seventh or eighth time this government is interfering in the free collective bargaining process. My colleague the mem- ber for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will talk about that a little bit later. Once again, here we are, with this gov- ernment interfering in a proce ss that they don't have to interfere in at all — in the private sector, with the two main sides saying they're happy to go back to work, happy to mediate, happy to have binding arbitration.

There's no need for this oppressive legislation except for this Liberal government's failures. Their third failure, of course, is the failed softwood lumber dispute strategy and their failed forest policies. Let's go. I noted that the Minister of Labour talked about some truck logger he had heard from. Well, I guess that truck logger is bitter, because here's what this B.C. Liberal Premier said to the Truck Loggers Association convention on January 17, 2003. Let's see; that would be exactly 11 mont hs ago. Here's what he said.

I quote the Premier: "I'm here to tell you that this is the year for forestry in the province of British Co- lumbia. This is the year we turn to the future." He got a standing ovation from the truck loggers. Who wouldn't give him a standing ovation with the big-guy promise like that? Wow. [H. Long in the chair.] Well, if this is the year we turn to the future, God help us. It has been a year of disaster after disaster for the forestry sector. I bet you that now that truck logger is saying: "Oh my God.

Don't make any promises in 2004." I'm pretty sure that's what the forest sector is saying. [1535] Yep, at the beginning of 2003 the Premier declared t h i s w o u l d b e t h e y e a r o f f o r e s t r y . H e l e f t o u t o n e word. I hate it when that happens on your computer — you know, when the computer deletes one word. He meant to say, surely: "This is going to be a disastrous year for forestry — annus horribilis year of forestry." He forgot those words.

So here's what the future looks like 11 months after the Premier made that prom ise: no softwood lumber agreement with the United States; a proposed agree- ment that does exactly what the Minister of Forests in B.C. said he wouldn't allow to happen — impose quo- tas. That's exactly what's on the table. That's being condemned by all the major players in the industry, and there's no likelihood of reaching an agreement that's good for B.C. until after November 2004. No agreement, despite the Prem ier's two cap-in-hand trips to the feet of Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States.

In fact, I reca ll the Premier saying in his last cap-in-hand trip to s ee Dick Cheney that we're within weeks of resolving this dispute. Hmm, let me see. How long ago was that? No agreement, despite the government getting rid of the appurtenancy clause that required companies to mill timber in the area that was cut so as to protect jobs and build communities. No wonder this government doesn't mention any protection for communities in this legislation.

I guess it's turning out that if the interior is the heartland — actually, the members from the coast say that the coast is the heartland — this government is cholesterol. There's no question about that. No agreement, despite th e government ending cut control that guaranteed a steady supply of fibre to local mills employing local workers, who in turn supported community businesses.

No softwood lumber agree- ment, despite the government making it easier for companies to sell off their licences without penalty, thereby allowing for even greater corporate concentra- tion, which is leading to mill closures and layoffs that have impacted the viability of communities across this province. No softwood lumber agreement, despite the gut- ting of the Forest Practices Code and environmental protection.

No softwood lumber agreement, despite the proclaiming of all of B.C.'s non-protected lands as "the working forest," which allows for the opening up of Crown lands to increased commercial pressure and now makes habitat protection a thing of the past. No softwood lumber agreement, despite the government taking back 20 percent of licence tenure and its attempt to create a competitive log market and stumpage rate. What a record. What a shameful record of failure. All of this is impacting on the negotiations — that we're now legislating away worker rights.

Companies are coping on the coast with this gov- ernment's failure to resolve the softwood lumber dis- pute, having no answers. We saw that in question pe- riod today. The Minister of Forests is doing a tour, talk- ing to chambers of commerce. Gee, that must be a rough audience for him. Well, it turns out it is a grow- ingly rough audience because of his failure to resolve the dispute. No answers otherwise.

So we have a coastal forest industry being devastated; th e interior looking for re- solve to the softwood lumber dispute; this government caving to a proposed agr eement that imposes quotas, something they said they'd never do; this government ending contractors' protection for getting a fair wage in the logging sector; and this government's refusal to protect the social contract that existed between forest- dependent communities and the workers there — that if a tree was cut down in the community, a job would be created in that community. That's all gone. What a shameful record of failure.

What has been the ultimate result of this Premier's failed forest agenda? Devastated communities across the province with record high unemployment levels in the forest sector before this strike, a demoralized population and not one word of comfort for those communities in this legislation. In fact, this new legislation, Bill 99, will add to and compound that devastation. [1540] The government says it had to bring in the bill to get forest workers back to work. Well, that is just sim- ply not true. In fact, some of the workers have gone

8396 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 back already. They didn't ne ed legislation. They went back to work before the legislation was even intro- duced. Companies are clearly taking a stand on whether they're going to give the master agreement to the workers or not. Some companies are saying: "Oh, sorry. We're not recalling you." I'll be asking the minister what guarantees he has for the workers that they'll be called to work. Company by company, I'll be asking the minister at committee stage. He said this will get them back to work. Tell me when and where. TimberWest isn't doing that.

Loggers are laid off anyway. In fact, just last week Interfor and TimberWest, two of the larg est companies in British Columbia, after they'd cut the deal with this minister about this legislation — after they'd cut the deal, which has been over a couple of weeks in the making — sent out letters to their workers cancelling the agreements between the workers and the companies. TimberWest and Interfor, knowing full well they were going to have their way with this government, aren't living up to putting workers back to work under the previous agreement.

TimberWest has made it quite clear it's not going to call crews back to work. It's made it quite clear to its workers. Now, how would we know that? Because we're actually out there talking to IWA workers, unlike the Minister of Labour and unlike the Premier. They have not talked to any worker who is actually working in the industry now — not one. But we have been, and here's the information we're getting back. As I said earlier, the We yerhaeuser Chemainus mill manager has told the workers, since this announce- ment was made, that they wo n't be bringing them back before the statutory holidays. Why is that?

Because they don't want to have to pay statutory holiday pay. That's nice. The minister is completely wrong when he says this legislation puts IWA workers back to work. Maybe that's why as more details emerge, IWA work- ers, in the majority, don't support this direction. How far is this government willing to go? It was very interesting to read

section 9. Okay, so we know that the rest of the bill says that everything's got to be in place by May 31, includin g the arbitrator's binding collective agreement, and that lots and lots of IWA workers won't even be back to work until April any- way. Just in case the arbitrator doesn't impose enough concessions on IWA workers, he gets another kick at the cat under

section 9. What

section 9 says is that the commissioner will report to the minister before July 31, 2004, with recommendations respecting: "(

i) the impact that, in the commissioner's opinion, current coastal forest policy may have on the successful operation of a collective agreement concluded under this Part, and (ii) measures that the trustee of the B.C. Forestry Revitali- zation Trust referred to in

section 10 of the Forest Revi- talization Act may take, and what the parties to a col- lective agreement concluded under this Part may do to maximize funding under the trust." [1545] So May 31 — impose collective agreement through binding arbitration that the workers don't get a vote on; nor do the companies. Th en let's say the softwood lumber dispute is on the verge of being resolved if this government gives more concessions to the Americans and if those concessions involve this government hav- ing to tear up even some of the lesser wages and work- ing conditions imposed through binding arbitration.

Then the commissioner can make recommendations to the government — how they should further erode the contract in order to appease the Americans under the softwood lumber dispute even more. There's a nice little path ou tlined in this legislation of the ability for this government to make even further concessions for working families and forest-dependent communities by legislation. What a record. What a shameful record of failure. Well, I will just say that the NDP has no….

We have no intention of holding up this agreement, none whatsoever, because that's what peo- ple have said that they want — says this government. We'll see. We believe very strongly that getting a fair resolution in this dispute is crucial to B.C. We didn't need to be here to do that. This government could have appointed an industrial inquiry commis- sioner, according to the current law of the land. We will oppose this legislation, but we will not hold it up.

It is incumbent upon us, as the opposition, to ask all the necessary questions to get this minister on record for what his and his government's real inten- tions are. We will provide the proper examination of this legislation that the public expects, that the workers and the companies expect and indeed depend on us for. We have no intention of merely filibustering this bill. There are one or two government members who wish to address this bill, and we assume they have no intention of filibustering this legislation either. We op- pose it. We will stand to oppose this legislation.

We will do absolutely nothing to exacerbate the failures of this government. P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance to respond in second reading to Bill 99. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's supergovernment. Big Brother government has once again come to the rescue in British Columbia. But wait a minute. Who is actually being rescued here? Is it the B.C. taxpayer ? Is it the forestry employ- ers, or is it the forestry workers? Dare I say it? Is it just the government rescuing itself, being opportunistic and self-serving? God forbid. Perish such a thought.

Could it be that government could stoop so low as to seek to undermine the colle ctive bargaining rights of British Columbians at Christmastime, of all times? Surely, they wouldn't take advantage of difficulties in the labour dispute to further their own mandate of weakening workers' rights while placing more power into the employers' hands. I'm just calling a spade a spade here, and if this is the mandate, I would say to the minister: "Just say so." If this intervention is — as the minister has said — in the spirit of the season, isn't the Christmas season, folks, about honesty, truth and giving? So what is the

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8397 truth with respect to the go vernment's intervention at this time with this piece of legislation? And where is the giving? [1550] Who is the giver? Who is the receiver? If the gov- ernment's motivation is good and honest and not devi- ous, not in collusion with one side in this dispute, then we might see a fair outcome. What I see so far I don't care for, but I hold my skepticism in reserve. It is Christmas, after all. I just hope that the workers and their families are not going to end up, at the end of the day, with a lump of coal. J.

Kwan: I rise to engage in debate on Bill 99, the Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act. The bill was introduced today. At the time of first reading I couldn't help but think — and in fact I said — that this is all about politics. That's why the government has brought this bill in. It is about politics and is not, in fact, about communities. What this government does, and has a record of doing, is inject politics into labour relations in British Columbia. No matter what the damage, that's their ideology, and that's what they will do. That's what they're doing now. At that time, Mr.

Speaker, when I heckled the min- ister that this is all about politics, the member for Burquitlam shouted at me and said: "Well, duh. Is there anything inside your head?" That's what the member for Burquitlam said. I have to ask the member in this chamber…. Perhaps the elastic in his hairband is too tight. I wonder what's inside his head. The pattern of what this government has done to date has demon- strated that the entire process…. Deputy Speaker: Pardon me. Will the member please keep the decorum of the House. J. Kwan: What this government has demonstrated around labour relations is nothing but politics.

That's what this government is doing with Bill 99, and that's w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t h a s d on e i n t h e p a s t w i t h a s e - ries of bills. In fact, I did a count while the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague from Vancouver- Hastings, was speaking. I did a count of how many bills this government has brought in for political rea- sons to interfere in labour relations in the province of British Columbia. The count comes to 11 pieces of legis- lation. Let me just review for the record.

In the lead-up to the 2001 election the Premier — then the opposition leader and now Premier — told working people in Brit- ish Columbia that he would respect agreements that had been negotiated and signed by public service workers and their employers. Here's a direct quote: "I'm not tearing up any agre ements." That is a direct quote from the now Premie r, the then opposition leader, quoted in the HEU Guardian, November 2000. In just over two years this government has torn up the contracts for tens of thousands of workers by a stroke of the legislative pen.

Since almost the day it was elected, this government has gone to war with working people, interfering in the collective agreement process, in the bargaining process, to impose heavy- handed, one-sided legislation. The B.C.

Liberal gov- ernment has introduced legislation to retroactively cancel the contracts of health care workers, teachers and college instructors and to cancel arbitration for physicians. [1555] In fact, this government is so keen on injecting poli- tics into the daily lives of British Columbians that the Minister of Education went and came up with this col- lege act — for the first time in the history of British Columbia taking away an independent authority of a profession for self-regulation.

It is this government who has done that, and it is this Minister of Education who hates the teachers so very much that she thinks by creating a warpath against the teachers, by taking away their independence as a professional body, somehow that would benefit the education system. Only she found out the hard way. She had to eat crow and un- derstand that injecting politics into the classrooms is the wrong thing to do, and that understanding the teachers in the classrooms has every value in our edu- cation system.

That is the ideology of this government — much to the Minister of Education's chagrin, I'm sure, that she got caught, and this government's chagrin that they got caught with their pants down each and every time. They should understand that introducing politics into the lives of British Columbians in such a way that hurts and damages the long-term viability of communities is the wrong thing to do. The member for Burquitlam would be wise to un- derstand that concept.

Th e issue around introducing politics in such a negative way that disrupts the due process of labour relations in British Columbia, for both the employers and the workers, is not beneficial in the long term. It creates instability in our economy, it creates instability for the workers, and it creates insta- bility for our communities. That's why politics should not be injected into labour relations in the cavalier way that this government, this Minister of Labour and this Minister of Education like to do. In almost every case…. Interjections. J.

Kwan: I know there'll be ample opportunity for the Liberal MLAs to rise up. They're heckling me like crazy. It kind of hurts when you press the right but- tons, Mr. Speaker. But let me tell you that these are the facts, and I'm putting it on the record. The members may not like it, but they are the facts. In almost every case there was not even an attempt to negotiate first.

Instead, this Liberal government has chosen to create conflict and division, which this Minis- ter of Education is so apt in demonstrating, injecting the kind of conflict and di vision into the classrooms that hurts students and their education. But to heck with them. That's what this Minister of Education's

8398 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 approach has been, and that's what this government's approach has been. This government has chosen to create conflict and division in our health care system, in our schools, in our colleges, in our ferry system — just about any- where they could lay their di rty fingers on. They have interfered in collective bargaining so many times and have called this Legislature back for so many emer- gency sessions that it actually makes your head spin. In fact, the first legislative act of this B.C.

Liberal government was to bring back-to-work legislation for health care workers. In what would be the first of many special emergency sittings of the Legislature, this gov- ernment brought in Bill 2, Health Care Services Con- tinuation Act, on June 19, 2001 — a mere month after they were elected. [1600] They followed that up with the infamous Bills 27, 28 and 29 in a weekend marathon of contract-breaking in January of 2002. This government tore up thousands of contracts in the health and education sectors, the very contracts the Premier pr omised he would not tear up.

The Premier actually promised he would honour them. So much for the Prem ier's word. Now we know what the Premier's word is worth: nothing — not the paper it was written on. The New Era document it was printed on is worth nothing. These bills pave the way for massive cuts to health care and education and for the closures of hospitals and care facilities throughout the province. Damage to the health care system is not the only consequence of the B.C. Liberal government's decision to rip up contracts. The other is, of course, the sullied reputation the B.C.

Premier has been given in the in- ternational and business communities. After all, a con- tract is a legally binding ag reement, the sanctity of which is absolutely critical to creating a positive busi- ness climate. As the Globe and Mail editorial stated at the time, the Premier "violated a basic covenant on the weekend by forcibly rewriting legal negotiated con- tracts that were still in forc e. If he is not prepared to respect so basic a legal agreement, what other contracts is he prepared to rip up?" That's a direct quote from the Globe and Mail. Indeed, what other contracts?

As it turns out, breaking contracts and legislating people back to work has become a hallmark of this B.C. Liberal government. In fact, this government's record on industrial relations is so bad that it actually has been censored by a United Nations body for its labour poli- cies — a rare and shameful occurrence for a Canadian administration. The International Labour Organization has ruled that the B.C.

Liberal government violated the UN convention on freedom of association and has called on the government to repeal the law declaring K-to-12 education an essential service and to amend five other statutes to ensure that working conditions are negotiated rather than imposed. This is what the UN had to say. In the most recent session this government brought in Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act — legislation that amplified the contract-breaking provisions of Bill 29, extending the rules on contracting- out to any private company hi red by a health authority to deliver non-clinical services.

On top of the multiple attacks this government has made on the free collective bargaining process, this B.C. Liberal government has also attacked the working people in British Columbia in two other ways. They've made a number of regressive changes to the Labour Code, including changes that made organizing new certifications difficult and de-certification easier. Non- union workers have had their protections under the Employment Standards Act gutted. Some of the most recent changes by this B.C.

Liberal government exclude farmworkers from rules governing hours of work, overtime and statutory holiday pay — and deregulated child labour…. All employees have suffered from the cuts this government has made to the Workers Com- pensation Board, which have reduced injured worker benefits, ended rehabilitation programs and closed WCB offices. [1605] Other policies that hurt workers and have been brought to British Columbians by this government include the two-tier minimum wage, or what this gov- ernment likes to call the training wage, and the pro- smoking rules for bars and restaurants.

The govern- ment actually overruled the WCB in order to accom- plish this for their election donors. In just the past two sessions this government has introduced a myriad of bills that directly and negatively affect workers in this province. Bill 18, the Coas tal Ferry Act, which ripped up contracts for B.C. ferry workers; Bill 89, the B.C. Railway Amendment Act, which ripped up contracts for workers at the B.C.

Rail port subdivision; Bill 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act, which established that successorship rights would no longer exist for community care wo rkers; Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, which ripped up successorship rights for contractor employees; Bill 95, the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003, which allowed the minister to impose the disastrous cooling-off period for ferry workers that escalated the fe rry dispute; Bill 37, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, which legislated child labour, giving B.C. the lowest standards in Canada for protecting children in the workforce.

Earlier legislation eliminated farmworkers from the Employment Standards Act; Bill 39, the Transmission Corporation Act, which ov errides portions of the OPEIU collective agreement; and then Bill 21, the Uni- versity of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, which ordered workers back to work at UBC. These are just the bills from the recent sessions. It's almost as if this government cannot come into this chamber without attack ing the working people of this province and damaging the process of free collec- tive bargaining, which is key to a democratic society.

The message of this government to employers is clear: there is no need to bargain in good faith. Just put on a

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8399 bit of a show, and then we'll come in with our legisla- tive hammer and impose a settlement. In taking this high-handed ideological approach, this government has undermined the free collective bargaining process and create d a climate of instability and confrontation that is not good for anyone. It's not good for the workers, it's not good for the investors, it's not good for communities, and it's not good for our economy.

Generally, it's not good for British Columbi- ans, who are just trying to lead their lives to make a living in this economy in our province. Y o u h a v e t o w o n d e r , M r . S p e a k e r : w h a t i s B i l l 9 9 about? When you look through the bill which the gov- ernment introduced today…. I looked through it. We had a 15-minute recess, and I looked through this bill. While my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and the House Leader were speaking, I looked through the bill again, and I note there's not one mention of communi- ties in here, in this entire piece of legislation.

There's not one mention about the provision of returning to work. The Minister of Labour and the Premier, in their own press release, said that this bill was going to re- turn workers to the workforc e. Well, there's nothing in this bill that would call the workers back now. In fact, my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings identified that in Chemai nus, Weyerhaeuser had al- ready indicated they would not be calling workers back — why? — because they want to save on overtime pay over the holiday season. Where else? TimberWest said they're not going to be calling the workers back.

What does this mean for a lot of the workers? What it means is that they can then collect EI. Then you have to ask the question: why is there such urgency for this bill to be brought in this House for this government to bring forward the legislative hammer, when in fact it does not return workers back to work? Interesting, isn't it? Other than to say this legislation is about ideology…. [1610] It's about some sort of backroom deal that the gov- ernment made amongst a few people, and that's what this piece of legislation is about.

Be damned with the free collective bargaining process; be damned with industrial relations in British Columbia. Be damned with stability in the workforce, where investors need to know there are good processes in place that would be respected, where people need to know that contracts and legal agreements are not signed to be ripped up and torn apart just like that at the whim of the Premier, at the whim of the Minister of Labour, at the whim of this government. Ideology prevails, where their men- tor…. I shouldn't say mentor . Sorry, that's the wrong word.

Their leading charge always, always puts poli- tics before the people. That is the approach where confrontation on con- flict wins the day. They want to see community pitted against community, workers against employers, so that there's discord in the comm unity and so that negotia- tion would not have an opportunity in our labour rela- tions process. At the end of the day, all the employer needs to do is say to this government, "We don't want to negotiate.

Do what you can do," and that is to legis- late and bring down the legislative hammer so that the process of fair negotiations in British Columbia would be completely undermined. In this instance, with Bill 99, many of the workers themselves would not even have the right to vote on their future when they've in vested years and in some cases decades of their lives into their careers, in their jobs. They've invested their families' future in their jobs. This government is saying: "You don't even get a vote in saying where your future lies." Shame. D.

Hayer: Bill 99, the bill we are debating today, is all about partnerships. It is about getting people back to work, about getting a hu ge industry component op- erating again. It is about government and unions, em- ployees and employers getti ng together, joining to- gether in a partnership to get people back to work, to get labour negotiations back on track, to have govern- ment, industry and unions working together to solve a crisis. We have an industry that is already on its knees due to American protectionist policies.

We cannot af- ford to hurt it further ours elves by having the coastal sector out of production. No one wants to see people out of work, particularly at this time of year. Workers, communities and families are being impacted and are being hurt during a time when everyone should be celebrating, should be gathering together for a joyful Christmas season. The union that represents coastal forest workers is supporting this legislation.

In fact, IWA president Dave Haggard joined with the Premier on Sunday and said: "This is the right time for the government to act in this dispute." That is a clear indication that what we are doing here today is the right and proper thing to do. Change is needed in the coastal forest industry to en- sure its survival and the survival of well-paying jobs to keep families and communities strong. Most of the saw and shingle mills in my constitu- ency of Surrey-Tynehead depend on the strength and viability of the coastal forest industry. This legislation will give them certainty and security.

It will ensure that people are back at work, that fibre will continue to flow into the mills and that many of my constituents keep working. The union wants this legislation, the employ- ers — through the Forest Industrial Relations organiza- tion — want this, and both parties want to get back to the bargaining table. [1615] This legislation enables that. It provides the breather that everyone needs — workers, their families, their communities and their employers — to get back to the table to negotiate a settlement to this dispute that works for everyone.

Both sides in this dispute asked the government to be involved, and both sides support the actions we are taking now in this House. On the government side, we often talk about the new era. Well, we are seeing that new era in action. We are doing what we were asked to do: help bring about a resolution to a dispute that has been hurting British

8400 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 Columbia's reputation, hurting our economy, hurting our communities and hurting our families. Clearly, it is time to resolve this issue, and by debating this legisla- tion today, we are moving towards resolution, moving away from the hurtful thin gs and moving toward a positive outcome that will benefit us all over the long term. Everybody acknowledges that change needs to come to the coastal forest industry, and those changes will come, I am certain, as a result of the union and the industry sitting down once again across the bargaining table.

While both parties start talking again, workers will be back at work, families will prosper, and, hope- fully, a little extra can be un der the Christmas tree this year as a result of this legislation. Therefore, I want to cong ratulate both the industry and the union for requesting the assistance of the gov- ernment to bring a resolution to this dispute. I wish them much success in their negotiations. Lastly, I offer everyone the best of the season. R.

Harris: I was going to be brief, but I don't think I'll be quite as brief as I originally planned on, espe- cially after listening to the members from the opposi- tion. I want to start off with a little story about where I think a lot of us…. I think every one of us had different plans for where we were going to be today. I know I had a different idea of what I'd be doing today, before Sunday. I'd planned to be in one of the schools in my riding today, talking to a class. Actually, there were about three classes coming.

We had to phone the prin cipal of that school on Monday and tell him that I wouldn't be able to attend because the House was being called back, and we told him why. His response initially…. Actually, it was my CA that called. It wasn't me. She came back and said: "Well, he seemed a little bit short, because they were kind of disappointed. They had planned this event around it, and he'd be going down to tell the teachers in the class that you wouldn't be there." He was pretty disappointed and wanted to know how we could actu- ally do that. It didn't seem right to him. [Mr.

Speaker in the chair.] About half an hour later we got a call back from the principal, and my CA took it again. His comment was: "Well, I went down and talked to the class, and actu- ally, I got a different point of view." He told the stu- d e n t s t h a t I w o u l d n ' t b e a b l e t o c o m e i n o n T u e s d a y and that the reason was that the House was being called back, and it was being called back because there was legislation that would be passed that would bring an end to the work stoppage. One of the students in the class said: "Well, my dad's been off work for quite a while.

That's a pretty good idea. That's a pretty good reason. That's okay with me. Can he come in January?" Some of the other students joined in on that. His com- ment was that he wanted to phone to say he's got a different perspective on what we're doing today, be- cause it is important. I listen to the member for Vancouver-Hastings and her partner go on about how concerned they are about forest jobs in rural commu nities and how they can hardly wait for someone from a rural community to stand up and actually talk about that.

I wish they had had that concern in the nineties — the nineties that the Leader of the Opposition just raved about with all the great economic indicators. I think we had something like close to 33,000 people wo rking in the forest indus- try in 1990 and — what? — 15,000 today, tops, or maybe 12,000. That's probably people that are regis- tered to work in the industry but aren't actually work- ing. She talked about appurten ancy. That's a great one. Twenty-seven mills have closed in B.C. since 1995-96. We had appurtenancy then, an d it didn't stop any of the mills.

They keep throwing out the phrase "pro-industry." I know what they're getting at, but I'll tell you what pro-industry means to me. Pro-industry is about hav- ing an industry…. Actually, I think it means the same thing to companies; it means the same thing to work- ers; it means the same thing to communities that are forest dependent. [1620] It's about an industry that's thriving. It's one that is attracting new investment an d that's actually creating new jobs. It's putting customers in the stores of our chambers of commerce in every one of our little towns. It's putting students in the classroom.

Somehow we've got to manage to tie this whole thing to education. It puts people in our communities. It makes our hospitals and all of our services vital. It's actually what growth is about, and I wish they actu ally gave a damn about it between 1990 and '99. I probably wouldn't have run for this job. I'd still be doing my other job, because we'd all be doing pretty good. There are a lot of new peop le in this House. They're here because they couldn't take it anymore. They couldn't take the fact that those folks didn't care about our communities. They did everything in their power to finish us off.

We used to have 27 operating mines, I think, in 1990 and 11 today. Keep going down the track we're going, and there'll be about five in another five years. There was no new development in rural communi- ties. It was the census from '96 to 2000 that confirmed what all of us in those communities knew — that we were dying, that people were leaving. That's when the exodus was occurring, and it goes on and on. They talk about pitting workers against employers, against communities. This bill is anything but that. This minister and the Premier of this province need to be commended.

You know, being in government is about leadership. That's what it's about. It's about when peo- ple come to you and ask for assistance — that you're there. In my riding not that long ago, actually, we had a strike at the Eurocan pulp mill. It's been going on since May. Both parties couldn't get anywhere. They came to this government and said: "Can you give us a hand?"

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8401 That minister was there. Two days later we have an agreement. People are back to work. That's what this is about. Those members talk about the institutions. That's what concerns them. We talk about the people. That's what I talk about. I talk about the people who are im- pacted by not going to work, about that one child in that class who says: "That's a good idea. My dad hasn't worked for a while. It would be nice to get him back to work. I know he'd be happy to go back to work." That's important. That's what this bill's about. They don't get it.

It's actually not about pitting people against each other. It's about bringing people together. I think it's absolutely amazing that we have the president of the IWA and the chair of FIR going: "You know what? We need a little bit of help he re. Can you, as government, g ive u s a hand?" Ou r job is t o say y es. Tha t's actu ally what our job is. That's what we're here for. They don't get that. They want to talk about everything today — abso- lutely everything. Well, what did they do? What are we

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1216pm-08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1216pm 08
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5ab2ede544318153ddc63345fd11a2bb9e80f493

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