British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 17, 2007 (38th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H0417pm-02) (H0417pm 02)

H0417pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 17, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC THIRD SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

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

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. 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 ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 17, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 6775 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... .............................................................. 6775 B.C. Hockey League champions Nanaimo-Parksville Clippers R.

Cantelon Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 6775 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 6776 Human Rights Code Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill M213) R.

Chouhan Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 6776 Vandalism at Beth Tikvah Synagogue J. Yap Land Commission legislation G. Gentner North Shore Credit Union legacy fund K. Whittred Mountain biking on Sunshine Coast N. Simons Central Mountain Air D. MacKay George Mussallem M.

Sather Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6778 Management of Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre expansion project N. Macdonald Hon. S. Hagen R. Fleming H. Bains J. Kwan M. Karagianis Columbia National Investments development plans on Sunshine Coast N. Simons Hon. I. Chong Interior Health Authority layoff notices to nurses K. Conroy Hon. G. Abbott Log export approvals for Western Forest Products B. Simpson Hon. R.

Coleman Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6782 C. Wyse G. Coons N. Simons Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6782 Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued) B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6806 Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued) C. Trevena Hon. S. Bond D. Cubberley S. Hammell H. Bains M. Sather M. Farnworth J. Horgan

6775 TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members C. Puchmayr: I have three guests in the crowd to- day from COPE Local 378: Lori Mayhew, David Black and Mike Bruce. Please make them extremely welcome. Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier today in the rotunda, members may know we had the opportunity to cele- brate the signing of four hi storic agreements with the Blueberry River First Nations. Those are agreements involving protocols around resource development and partnership participation between government and the Blueberry First Nations.

Joining us today in the Legislature are representa- tives from the Blueberry River First Nations: Chief Norman Yahey; Councillor Marvin Yahey; Councillor Sherri Dominic; Councillor Joe Apsassin; Daniel Talbot; Howard Southwell, the chief negotiator for the Blue- berry River First Nations; hi s wife and member of the Blueberry First Nations, Frances Wolf. Songhees elder Joan Morris provided a traditional greeting and prayer.

She is with us today as well as David Price, vice-president of western Canada operations of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and Paul Jenkins, executive director of the Oil and Gas Commission. I hope members on both sides of the House will make all of these representatives welcome. [1335] J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two representatives from COPE Local 378. They're two friends of mine. I'd like the House to welcome Gwenne Farrell and Lori Winstanley. Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to intro- duce some special visitors from Australia led by the hon.

David Hawker, who is the Speaker of the Australia House of Representatives. Accompanying him are Sen. Kay Patterson and Sen. Anne McEwen and also Members of Parliament Michael Hatton and Trish Draper. I met with the Speaker and a number of people in his delegation this morning and had a very interesting con- versation comparing Canada and Australia. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome. Hon. G. Campbell: Today in the House we also have special visitors from Southeast Asia. Visiting Vic- toria for the first time are diplomatic representatives of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

With us are His Excellency Denni s Ignatius, the high com- missioner for Malaysia; Hi s Excellency Snonshart Devahousten, the ambassador for Thailand; Her Excel- lency Magdalene Teo, high commissioner for Brunei Darussalam; His Excellency Jose Briantes, ambassador for the Philippines; His Excellency Djoko Hardono, the ambassador for the Republic of Indonesia. We also have Vancouver-based Consul General Chin Kwok Foo of Singapore. I had the opportunity to meet with them today, and we're looking forward to building mutual and benefi- cial associations between the ASEAN countries and British Columbia and Canada.

I hope that the Legisla- ture will join me in making them feel welcome. R. Austin: I have four visitors in the Legislature to- day. The first are Suzanne Ewen and her daughter Luci. Luci is a Gonzales Cooperative Preschool attendee along with my legislative assistant's son Cameron Mears. Suzanne and Luci are joined by her grandparents Alex and Valerie Carley. Alex and Valerie are recently retired, newly married and on their first visit here from Toronto. I ask the House to please make them welcome. Hon. G.

Hogg: We have the pleasure of having four delightful and interesting people from Surrey–White Rock with us today, making their first visit to the Leg- islature. Would the House please join me in making Lawrence and Sharon Hami lton and Carol and Bill Morrow most welcome. D. Chudnovsky: One of the very best high schools in the province is John Oliver Secondary School. It's at the corner of 41st Avenue an d Fraser Street in what is the best constituency in the province, Vancouver- Kensington. Some 150 of the students from JO are here today with their teachers visiting the Legislature.

Some of them are in the gall ery, and others are visiting the museum. Could you please make them welcome. I. Black: I have five guests in the galleries today. First of all, I would like to welcome two of them who are con- stituents. Mr. Richard Leem as well as a very well-known community leader in our community and attorney Michael Hwang are with us from northern Coquitlam. They are joined by three as sociates from Korea who are visiting Victoria for the first time: Hyun-Seok Gee, Hyuk Choi and Sung Eun Oh. They are with an organization called Woongjin.

They're exploring areas of common inter- est with respect to education and business investment. Would the House please make them feel most welcome. Tributes B.C. HOCKEY LEAGUE CHAMPIONS NANAIMO-PARKSVILLE CLIPPERS R. Cantelon: A small indulgence. Not with us, though, are the Nanaimo Clippers, who last night won the B.C. Junior Hockey League Championship. [1340] Introductions by Members Hon. G. Hogg: I can't let the member for Malahat– Juan de Fuca be the only one to introduce a resident of the riding of Surrey–White Rock. I'd also like to add

6776 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 my congratulations and welcome Gwenne Farrell, who is here from Surrey–White Rock. I want the whole House to also recognize her. Introduction and First Reading of Bills HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2007 R. Chouhan presented a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007. R. Chouhan: I move introduction of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, for first reading. Motion approved. R. Chouhan: I am pleased to introduce the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2007.

In 2002, among various other budget and system cuts, this government passed legislation abolishi ng our Human Rights Com- mission. The commission had performed various func- tions, including human rights research, education, monitoring, investigation and dispute resolution. The results have been dramatic.

(1) British Columbia currently stands as the only province in Canada without a commission.

(2) Our human rights syst em does not accord with international norms and principles, and it flouts our international legal obligations.

(3) Human rights education, research and monitor- ing are no longer carried out effectively in this province and are clearly not priorities for the current government.

(4) Victims of human rights abuses are isolated and powerless without the assistance of the commission, and matters of systemic discrimination and harassment are not being addressed. This bill will restore the B.C. Human Rights Com- mission. The new and improved commission will re- build a human rights culture in this province through research, education and outreach.

It will revive the public purpose of our human rights legislation by car- rying out public interest investigations and litigation, and it will respond to the needs and concerns of Brit- ish Columbians by providing information and assis- tance regarding human rights disputes. Our human rights will not protect themselves. Our commitment to diversity and human dignity must be nourished to be fulfilled. Equality and freedom from discrimination cannot be ac hieved without active pub- lic participation. British Columbia needs a human rights commission.

I therefore move that this bill, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2007, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today. Bill M213, Human Rights Code Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) VANDALISM AT BETH TIKVAH SYNAGOGUE J. Yap: Yesterday in this House we marked Yom Ha- Shoah and honoured the memory of Holocaust survivors. Today I rise to denounce the recent vandalism at the Beth Tikvah Synagogue in my riding in the city of Rich- mond. This crime of hatred has deeply affected everyone in my community. Personally, I'm shocked. I know that I can speak for everyone in this House, on both sides, in condemning this cowardly act. I would like to offer our sympathy to members of the synagogue.

One of the steadfast principles of our society is toler- ance and acceptance of cultures from around the world. British Columbians take great pride in our multicultural mosaic. This is what makes our province a great place. In the face of these acts of hatred, we as a society must be vigilant in exposing prejud ice and intolerance because they are not the true sentiments of British Columbians. As a government we have a responsibility as well, through various programs such as the B.C. Anti-Racism and Multiculturalism Program.

The province is working hard to ensure that everyone, regardless of their culture, has the right to live in strong, safe communities without racism and other forms of hate activity. [1345] It is my sincere wish that this cowardly crime never rears itself again. British Columbia thrives on the syn- ergy from the diverse cultures that make their home here. I know that we can all agree in condemning this act of vandalism against Beth Tikvah Synagogue. LAND COMMISSION LEGISLATION G. Gentner: Today marks a very significant anni- versary in B.C.'s political and cultural history.

On April 17, 1973, after several amendments, the NDP govern- ment passed the Land Commission Act. The bill was more than just a shift in policy, for it was the beginning of an era of fundamental reorganization in the way we think as a society. Today the bill is more important than ever, because how we manage and maintain our farmland will not only show what we as a society and province hold dear — the importance of local produce — but how genuine our obligation is in the fight against climate change.

During the postwar years, rapid housing and in- dustrial expansion in British Columbia communities prompted concern about the loss of valuable farmland. Prior to 1972 about 5,000 hectares of arable B.C. soil were lost yearly to non-farming purposes. By 1973 some of the most productive land in the province had been lost to residential and urban development. Only 5 percent of the province's land mass is arable, and less than 1 percent possesses a productivity rating of class one. The act brought to a halt the subdivision of agricul- tural land in the province.

Though it received a storm of criticism, the pending storm with its removal will

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6777 be severe. On this day and every day, I ask all British Columbians to embody the spirit of the ALR and to put human subsistence ahead of greed, ahead of private interest, ahead of any excuse and stakeholder, for it will define us as a species, a society, a province and a civilization. NORTH SHORE CREDIT UNION LEGACY FUND K. Whittred: It's not often that any of us get an oppor- tunity to attend an event as exciting as one I attended last week.

The North Shore Credit Union, since its inception in 1941, has always believed in being part of and serving its community. That value of serving community was alive and well on April 11 when the North Shore Credit Union awarded a $1 million legacy fund to a North Shore or- ganization. This one-time million-dollar grant is the larg- est single donation ever made by the credit union. The three short-listed fina lists for the million-dollar award were North Shore Hospice, North Vancouver Outdoor School and West Co ast Alternatives Society.

In judging the finalists, the trustees were looking for a meaningful community project that demonstrated the physical, environmental and financial wellness of the local communities served by the credit union. In my view — and I work closely with all of those organizations — all finalists were worthy of this fund. I was very pleased, however, that following the opening of the envelope and the drum roll, it was North Van- couver Outdoor School that won the award. The North Vancouver Outdoor School has been operating since 1969.

It is recognized internationally for its hands-on natural and cult ural history learning. The environmental learning centre is expected to be com- pleted by late 2009 and will be operated by the North Vancouver school district to provide outdoor environ- mental and cultural education to more than 10,000 stu- dents, teachers and adults each year. Again, congratulations to all the finalists and to the North Shore Credit Union for the fantastic work they do in my community. MOUNTAIN BIKING ON SUNSHINE COAST N.

Simons: The Sunshine Coast is fast becoming the mountain biking destination of choice, and not just for British Columbians who make day trips from the lower mainland. It's also known far and wide in the mountain biking community as a prime visitor destination because of its beautiful scenery, the va riety of trails, and the ex- cellent bike shops and services available to riders. This world-class reputation didn't happen without the vision and leadership of individuals and businesses on the Sunshine Coast.

In 1990 elementary school teacher Doug Detwiller developed the Sprockids pro- gram to introduce bicycling to youngsters in elemen- tary school. Besides giving them the skills to ride safely and to maintain their bikes, they participate in trail- building and team events wh ere every single child not only participates but participates equally. This school program leaves a lasting impression on participants and their families. It creates lifelong cyclists and environmentally consciou s citizens.

It promotes good mental and physical health, brings together chil- dren and youth of different ages, and strengthens family ties. Most importantly, it builds school cohesion, well known as the most effective tool in preventing school bullying. It's no wonder that the Canadian Cycling As- sociation enthusiastically endorses the program. [1350] Something else that sets the Sunshine Coast apart f r o m o t h e r p l a c e s i n B . C . i s t h a t i t ' s h o m e t o t h e o n l y post-secondary program in North America for young people who want to make mountain biking a part of their career.

This one-of-a-kind program is coordinated by Caroline Depatie and is supported by individuals and industry professionals. It attracts young people interested in the tourism industry, event management and communications, and provides the necessary skills to promote the mountain biking industry. Should I slow down? The energy that one gets from mountain biking is evident in this two-minute statement. This Saturday I'll have th e pleasure of witnessing the unveiling of a new teaching trail specifically built for beginners. Of course, Doug Detwiller and the Sprockids have been involved right from the begin- ning.

With Sprockids, the mountain bike certificate program and our vast network of trails and remarkably sunny weather, the Sunshine Coast should be consid- ered the mountain biking capital of British Columbia. CENTRAL MOUNTAIN AIR D. MacKay: In April of 1987 four people from Smithers started a small airline. Like most new busi- nesses, they started out small. After all, there were only four people involved, and it was and is a completely privately held company.

Like many other airlines throughout the world, this small company experienced the dramatic increases in fuel costs and of course the fallout following 9/11, when air travel was reduced in great numbers. Some airlines sought court protec tion from creditors, and some did not survive. I'm pleased to report that the airlines from Smithers suffered through those hard times. However, unlike many others in the airline industry, they did not cut services but continued to grow, and this month are celebrating their 20th anniversary. Today they operate 15 aircraft and employ 298 people.

I would be remiss if I did not say what great corporate citizens they are. Northern Thunderbird air- lines, an associate company with another 12 aircraft and 60 employees, completes this company's portfolio. Central Mountain Air services 18 destinations throughout Alberta and British Columbia 20 years later. They continue to participate in the provincial travel assistance program for medical travel for per- sons having to travel for health care, and have since the 1990s. The associate company, Northern Thunderbird airlines, provides services to the mining industry, for-

6778 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 estry, medevac, mail, guide-outfitting and the oil and gas industry, to name a few. I would ask members of this House to join me in saying congratulations to Do ug, Lindsay, Patty and all of the other great employees who made and continue to make Central Mountain airlines what it is today — a great success story. GEORGE MUSSALLEM M. Sather: George Mussallem served four terms in this Legislative Assembly as a Social Credit MLA for the con- stituency of Dewdney from 1966 to 1972 and then again from 1975 to 1983.

George served as government Whip and Chair of Public Accounts, along with serving on various committees and representing British Columbia in a variety of capacities within the province and across Canada. George took over the fam ily business and operated Mussallem Chevrolet Cadillac for over 30 years before being elected. The business was open for 88 years. George followed his father into both business and pub- lic life. George's father Solomon served on Maple Ridge council for 23 years — 21 years as mayor.

George retired from public life in May 1983 and con- tinued to serve the community as a member of the GVRD advisory commission for parks, director of Doug- las College Foundation, Maple Ridge economic advisory committee, Maple Ridge Foundation and the nominat- ing committee for the Maple Ridge hospital board. George was also a foundi ng member of the convoca- tion for Simon Fraser University. George was involved with the Boy Scouts, having started the movement in Ma- ple Ridge and Pitt Meadows in 1947, and served as a Sun- day school superintendent for St. Andrews United Church.

An avid pilot, having attained his licence in 1929, George was flying his own plane well into his late 70s. On April 10, 2007, George Mussallem passed away in Ridge Meadows Hospital . He was 99 years old. George is predeceased by his first wife Elizabeth and survived by his three children — Robert, Anne and David — and his second wife Grace, along with his siblings, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. [1355] George Mussallem served his community and the con- stituents of British Columbia well. I know that everyone in this House sends their condolences to the Mussallem fam- ily for their loss.

Oral Questions MANAGEMENT OF VANCOUVER TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT N. Macdonald: There's a clear reason that the cost of the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project has doubled — a lackadaisical attitude by a succession of B.C. Liberal ministers, be st represented by this min- ister's indifference to a project 100 percent over budget, and mismanagement by a boar d made up entirely of the Premier's friends and financial backers. Let's look at one co ntract: the Pace Group — a major Liberal donor in the range of $60,000, as the minister would say.

Managing director Norman Stowe is a close friend of the Liberal Party. He even worked on this min- ister's own election campaign. They received over $500,000 in contracts from the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board and delivered 16 press releases, as far as I can see. That's $33,000 per release. How can the minister defend such blatant partisan rewards when he cannot even tell us what the final cost of this project will be? Hon. S. Hagen: We are not afraid to disclose that the costs have gone up fo r the convention centre. We've been very public; we've been very transpar- ent.

The reason the costs have gone up is that the cost of steel and the cost of concrete have gone up dramatically. Also, this project is being built in the tightest labour climate that this province has ever h a d . W e h a v e t h e l o w e s t u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e t h a t we've ever had. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member has a supplemental. N. Macdonald: Let's look at this. The Premier has set up a government communications office of over 200 people. They have a massiv e budget.

One would think that they could turn out a press release or set up a backstop — whatever is needed for this project's com- munications. But instead this board of B.C. Liberals decides to spend half a million dollars to hire a B.C. Liberal friend and donor to write press releases, and all o f t h i s i s p a i d f o r b y B . C . t a x p a y e r s . I s i t a n y w o n d e r that this is 100 percent over budget? The question is: can the minister justify wasting taxpayers' money in this way? Hon. S. Hagen: What a punctilious attitude.

I can tell this House that when that party was in government in the dismal, dark decade of the '90s, that government did more business with the Pace Group than this gov- ernment ever has. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member has a further supplemental. N. Macdonald: The minister has been in charge of this file for almost a year. He still has no clue of what the real costs of this project will be. When asked yes- terday about the cost, he could not say clearly.

When he was asked about Ken Dobell and the VCCEP and whether they would be held accountable, he said that they would not be held accountable for what's gone on. Taxpayers deserve clear answers about the cost. The minister does not know the final cost at this time. When is he going to tell this House and the public how

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6779 much that project is actually going to cost? Give us a date. [1400] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Hon. S. Hagen: This expanded convention centre will put us in the leading-edge place in the world. This will be a world-class convention centre. They've al- ready booked 50 conventions, 27 of which would not be coming to Vancouver without the expansion. So my question is: why is the NDP against all these jobs that are being created there? Why are they against the 7,000 construction jobs? Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston, please apologize. C. Evans: Oh yeah, I apologize… Interjections. C. Evans: …standing up, sir. Mr. Speaker: Minister, continue. Hon. S. Hagen: Well, the message is important enough to repeat. Why is the NDP against the 7,000 construction jobs that are on that site today from seven different provinces? Why is the NDP against the 6,000 jobs that will be created to run the expanded Trade and Convention Centre? Why are they against new busi- ness coming to this province? Why are they so nega- tive, destructive and pessimistic? R.

Fleming: I wish the minister was a little more concerned about the world-class cost overruns occur- ring in British Columbia today. The minister had over- night to pin down a final cost. He hasn't done that. Perhaps he's done better at getting answers about the Auditor General's review. Yesterday the minister was completely unaware that an audit of the project's governance structure and financial management was well underway. Ken Dobell is paying the Auditor General $60,000 for this review.

If the minister isn't able to explain why the project is $400 million over budget or if we've hit bottom yet, can he tell this House why he's paying $60,000 for an audit that he's not even going to use to guide his decisions? Hon. S. Hagen: As everyone in this House knows, the Auditor General is performing audits on that par- ticular project every three months. The audit that the member is referring to is an audit that was requested by the board of VCCEP to do a more in-depth audit. We are waiting for that audit. The Auditor General, as you probably know, is independent of government.

I don't tell him when to bring his report out. When his report comes out, we will examine his report, and we will deal with it. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. R. Fleming: Yes, I do. The contract for the audit is in this minister's portfolio. It's available on the website. He'd know, if he has read it, that the draft deliverable for the report is March 30. Yet the minister has no idea there are recommendations pending on the governance structure of this corporation or on the cost overruns of the project. Mr.

Ken Dobell, the Premier's special adviser, has presided over $400 million of overrun spending, and climbing. The minister has been in charge of this file since mid-2006. It's now April 2007, and he keeps say- ing, "I don't know," when he's asked about the project's runaway costs or why its bo ard changes. Perhaps the real answer is: "Ken told me to." If Mr. Dobell has neglected to inform the minister about the existence…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. R. Fleming: I'll come to my point. If Mr.

Dobell has neglected to inform the minister about the existence of the pending audit, how can he have confidence in him? The minister has admitted he hasn't been fully briefed about the context of these changes. Can he assure this House and taxpayers that the board changes will be put on hold until the minister obtains the final report and has the benefit of reviewing it himself? [1405] Hon. S. Hagen: Let me say this slowly so that you'll understand it. The report from the Auditor General has not yet been received. H. Bains: Listening to this minister, it's clear that he doesn't know his file.

The friends of the Premier are making all the decisions, and no one is being held ac- countable for this. In the 2004 service plan, Ken Dobell sets the budget at $535 million — $40 million over the original budget — and states: "I am accountable for delivering on the service plan." In the 2005 service plan, Mr. Dobell raised the budget to $565 million and again said: "I am accountable." Mr. Speaker, you know what? He said exactly the same thing in 2006, and the budget ballooned to $800 million-plus. If Ken Dobell is so accountable for the sky- rocketing overruns, why didn't the minister fire him? Hon. S.

Hagen: Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the expanded Trade and Convention Centre. That side is not. We are in favour of the 50 new conventions com- ing to the province. That side is not. We are in favour of the $850 million worth of new economic activity generated by that. That side is not.

6780 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 We are in favour of the 7,000 construction jobs on that site. Obviously, that side is not. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. H. Bains: We are not in favour of the massive cost overrun created by their friends. We are in favour of responsibility and accountability, and they are not. The minister can't tell us how much the convention centre expansion will cost. All we know is that it's in the range of $800 million. That's double the original price, and the minister is keeping the person in charge of the boondoggle on the board.

The public wants accountability. By the Premier's own standards, Mr. Dobell should be fired. The minis- ter chose to stand on the si de of the Premier's friends instead of the B.C. taxpayers. Why didn't he do the right thing on behalf of Brit- ish Columbians and fire the four board members that he kept, including Mr. Dobell? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. S. Hagen: You know, 22 years ago the leader of the NDP said, "I'm against Expo 86" — 22 years ago. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. It's a great ex- ample for the Speaker from Australia. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr.

Speaker, 22 years ago the leader of the NDP said: "What happens if we throw a party and nobody comes?" Well, 22 million people came to Expo. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: It's going to be a short question period. [1410] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speak er, it's as sim ple as this. They're against the project; we're in favour of it. J. Kwan: In 2004 the Trade and Convention Centre expansion project was budgeted at $535 million. Today, in 2007, it is in the range of $800 million. How is this for accountability for you, Mr. Speaker?

The Trade and Convention Centre project is on fire with cost overruns, and the guy responsible for the cost overruns tries to get off the hook for his failures by offloading his re- sponsibilities to a new governance structure. Why is this minister acting as a puppet for the Premier by protecting Mr. Ken Dobell, the Premier's friend and insider? Hon. S. Hagen: As I said previously, we're less than two years away from openin g the doors of this brand- new world-class facility. It was a natural progression to merge the boards of PavCo. PavCo does the marketing for B.C.

Place and for the ex isting convention centre, with the new expanded convention centre, to make sure that we're ready to compete with the world to get conventions and business here to B.C. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. J. Kwan: Yes, and with a world-class overrun. Let's be clear. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. J. Kwan: By the Premier's own standard…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides. Continue. J. Kwan: Let's be clear. By the Premier's own stan- dard, Mr. Ken Dobell should have been fired, yet this minister refuses to do so.

Is indulging in hypocrisy easier than standing up to the Premier's orders? Hon. S. Hagen: NDP stands for negative, destruc- tive and pessimistic. I am amazed that the NDP can't bring themselves to say: "We're in favour of this world- class project. We're in favour of bringing new business to British Columbia. We're in favour of new jobs in British Columbia. We're in favour of doubling tourism in British Columbia." M. Karagianis: I t ' s q u i t e a p p a r e n t h e r e t h a t M r . Dobell is actually the Premier's secret minister on all of these boards and many others.

He oversaw this confer- ence project with its massive cost overruns and no end i n s i g h t , a r a n g e t h a t i s y e t t o b e d e f i n e d b y t h i s g o v - ernment. He merged boards at this point to cover up for his own mismanagement. He's also the Premier's special adviser and special chief insider. My question: is compromising his own integrity easier than standing up to the Premier and firing his friend off of these boards? Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said, this is a natural pro- gression to merge the boar ds of PavCo and the Trade and Convention Centre.

We did that because PavCo brings with them the market ing expertise. We need to market this new facility to make sure we attract even more than the conventions that are already booked. [1415] I can't imagine why the other side is against bring- ing all this new economic activity to the province. Why are you against the jobs? Why are you against the $850 million in economic activity?

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6781 Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. M. Karagianis: Yesterday we heard that the reason the boards were merged was because they needed construc- tion advice. Now we hear that they in fact need marketing advice. In fact, the merge of the boards was done before we hear the Auditor's report. The minister confessed yester- day that he didn't even know the report was coming. Again, this is clearly around the Premier's minister on the inside, Mr. Dobell. Will the minister stand up and say that Mr.

Dobell will take the fall for the mismanagement and overruns in this project, and fire him today? Hon. S. Hagen: There we have another grassy-knoll conspiracy theory from the NDP with absolutely no basis and no foundation. We merged the boards to make the boards better. Yes, we brought construction expertise on. We brought marketing expertise on, and that's to market the new trade and convention centre in the best possible way for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. COLUMBIA NATIONAL INVESTMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON SUNSHINE COAST N.

Simons: And now for something completely dif- ferent. I have a question. Ten months ago Columbia Na- tional Investments, a large development company with ties to the Liberals, bought over 3,000 acres of land on the Sunshine Coast. Three weeks ago this government passed legislation — controversial legislation, Bill 11 — amending the Local Government Act, which gives cabinet the power to create regions and resort communities out of nowhere. Last week Columbia National announced their plans to plunk an instant community right in the constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Then yesterday the minis- ter met with regional distri ct representatives, who are clearly, obviously and well-deserved to be concerned. What assurances can the Minister of Agriculture and Lands give us and give local communities that the local interests won't be subjugated to the interests of Columbia National? Hon. I. Chong: First of all, let me say how very proud we are on this side of the House to pass legisla- tion that would allow us to double tourism by the year 2015 by having resorts all around the province.

It's quite clear from the rhetoric I heard from mem- bers opposite during the debate that they don't want to see tourism potential around the province. They don't want to see resorts being built. They don't want invest- ments. They don't want jobs. The difference is: we do. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. N. Simons: Is it a supplemental? I can't really remember it. That had nothing to do with the first question I asked. I'll try again. Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with doubling tourism. We're all interested in bringing people to Brit- ish Columbia. We're all interested in that.

I mean, we're not going to change the dates at which point we're go- ing to double the tourism — and we are interested in increasing tourism — but the question is about regional government authority. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. N. Simons: I didn't hear the minister address that. How is the minister going to guarantee the community of Sunshine Coast that its local government — the in- terests of the local government, the duly elected repre- sentatives and their interests — won't be put on second fiddle? Excuse me, to all of the second fiddlers. As a musician I point that out.

Instead of perhaps going back 25 years or talking about issues I'm not raising, will the government give some assurances, some guarantee that it will not use legis- lation to override the interests of the local government? [1420] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. I. Chong: Local governments have received more dollars for infrastruc ture, more dollars for com- munity and more dollars for regional districts. That's how we're supporting our local governments. INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY LAYOFF NOTICES TO NURSES K.

Conroy: Last week a report was released that pointed to a looming shortfall in the number of health professionals in our province, including the nursing pro- fession. So imagine my surprise when also last week the Interior Health Authority announced that due to inade- quate funding, they were going to have to lay off 11 nurses from the Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital. Can the Minister of Health explain why he is forc- ing health authorities to lay off nurses at the very time when they need to retain them the most? Hon. G. Abbott: The member is absolutely incor- rect. No nurses will be laid off.

That is entirely clear. The Interior Health Authority is doing a reorganiza- tion, pursuant to the recommendations that were con- tained in the Albo report. The nurses will be deployed in different roles, but there are no layoffs. The member shouldn't be surprised. She was part of a government that in the 1990s…. Interjections. Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. She might have only been sympathetic to that government

6782 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 of the 1990s that saw the number of nursing graduates in this province reduced fr om over 900 in 1993 to just over 500 five years later. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental. K. Conroy: Well, I don't think those nurses would find much humour in the minister's response. In fact, let's quote from the memo that was sent to them. The 11 RNs were given their displacement notice o n A p r i l 1 . I f t h a t ' s n o t a layoff, I don't know what it is. These are 11 nurses who've had ten to 28 years' experience.

We're talking skilled nurses working in the OR, working all over the hospital. They're skilled, valuable nu rses. They were laid off. Are they going to be given other jobs? Potentially. Casual jobs they've been offered. Have they been given any kinds of security? No. Are people going to be displaced? Yes. Nurses are going to be displaced when we can least afford it. This is a reality in this hospital, because it's millions of dollars in deficit. They need to cut, and where are they cutting? They're cutting nurses. When is this minister going to intervene and stop this terrible situation of laying off nurses? Hon.

G. Abbott: I know sometimes the facts can get in the way of a really good question. I'll try not to let them get in the way of a really good answer, because I have the facts here. Of the affected staff, fo ur nurses are full-time, and seven are part-time. Every one of these nurses will be offered a position with an equivalent number of hours to what they had in their current job. Interior Health advises that no nurse will be forced into a casual posi- tion as a result of this change. Again, to the point about health human resources.

Imagine the hypocrisy of th is group across the House that talks about a nursing sh ortage, when we saw over the course of that dark and dismal decade, the 1990s, a 32-percent reduction in the number of nurses that were being educated in this province. [1425] LOG EXPORT APPROVALS FOR WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS B. Simpson: Over the last little while we've been can- vassing the issue of the critical log shortage on the coast and the fact that many jobs are being lost or threatened with being lost as a result of that log shortage.

We've shown that the minister continues to approve log exports despite the fact that we have that log shortage. However, there's an- other reason that we have that log shortage, and that is the monopoly that this minister has allowed Western Forest Products to have, particularly over Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this. Why did the minister not exercise his legislative authority and prevent Western Forest Products from obtaining that monopoly? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's be clear.

There have been 700,000 cubic metres less in log exports from British Columbia in the firs t quarter of 2007 than there were in 2006. The other side of this thing is the fact that the members opposite always seem to think that they should decide how a company should be run. So why don't we go back in a little bit of history and remember the half a billion dollars you blew down the tube on Skeena Cellulose, with no results? The fact of the matter is that you've got to let the forest industry compete. You've got to let it build a future. You're going to let it build a future, because you know what?

You never gave it an opportunity to, and we're going to. [End of question period.] Petitions C. Wyse: I have some petitions to present. First petition: 188 signatures seekin g a request to reconsider the decision to close the residential care facility of Deni House in Williams Lake. An additional petition: 37 signatures requesting the restoration of adequate funding for child care resource and referral centres. G. Coons: I have a petition from 77 residents on the north coast, in addition to the over 500 already, who request raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour and abolishing the $6 training wage. N.

Simons: I have a petition signed by 1,620 people in the Powell River region asking that the government provide long-term care facilities so that seniors can remain in Powell River without having to go far away from family and friends. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members, in this chamber we will be discussing the estimates of th e Ministry of Forests, and in Committee A the estimates of the Ministry of Educa- tion will continue. [1430] Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND RANGE AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 2:31 p.m. On Vote 33: ministry operations, $489,876,000 (con- tinued).

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6783 B. Simpson: For the minister and his staff, what I will likely spend the afternoon on is the revitalization strategy and various aspects of it and how it's working out. Because I note that one of the minister's staff members here is the financial whiz, I'll do some stuff around some of the finances for that while she is here. But let me start. I need to clarify something with respect to an announcement that was made by the min- ister with respect to the Langley multicentre and $15 million that was put to that.

Is that $15 million coming from the Ministry of Forests and Range budget? Hon. R. Coleman: No, it is not. B. Simpson: The rationale given around that was that it was in order to showcase beetle wood and so on. Where is a program like that, and how do other com- munities apply for it? Hon. R. Coleman: The multiplex in Langley was actually a project brought forward by that community, like any other project, to government. When it was brought to me at the time as a local MLA, I basically said no. My comment back to them was: "I'm the Min- ister of Forests.

We don't have a major wood project in British Columbia, so if you want anybody to advocate within grant programs or stuff within government for a project like this, I would like to see it built of wood." It's no grant from this particular ministry. It comes through Economic Development, and if you have any questions with regards to that particular side of it, I would suggest you save those for the Minister of Eco- nomic Development. B. Simpson: Let's just move, then, into the costs of the Revitalization Act, if I could.

It's my understanding t h a t w e s h o u l d n o w b e f i n i s h e d w i t h a l l o f t h e c l a w - backs for all of the non-TFL areas, according to the act. That should have happened. According to the act, it's three years after March 31, 2003, which would have made it March 31 of this year. With that, the first question is: was all of that claw- back compensation completed? Hon. R. Coleman: The coast is completed, and there are a few outstanding claims with some compa- nies in the interior. [1435] B.

Simpson: I need clarification, because the Forestry Revitalization Act stipulates that orders under that section, with the exception of TFLs…. TFLs were given five years, but orders under all other licences were supposed to be completed by March 31, 2006. So under what legal author- ity is the minister acting, then, if it's not completed? Hon. R. Coleman: All the legal taking is complete. So all the legal taking of the takeback is complete. There is still some work being done in operating areas with regards to that taking which is allowed to be done, but the legal taking is complete. B.

Simpson: I committed to go to the finances, so let's go to the finances. How much have we paid out for that clawback to date? Hon. R. Coleman: In March 2003 the Forestry Revi- talization Act was passed to revitalize and diversify the forest sector by reallocating 20 percent, as the member knows, of the harvesting rates. We continue to work with the licensees to identify specific areas to be re- turned to the Crown. We've done the takeback. That's complete, but we do have some operating areas we're working on.

On the financial side, there was $250 million set aside to compensate licensees for returning their log- ging rights to the Crown. To date, $203 million has been paid to tenure holders, representing about 85 per- cent of the takeback volume. Negotiations with 11 remaining tenure holders, representing about 15 percent of the takeback volume and associated ongoing infrastructure, are pending. That is allowed to continue to go on because it's a financial negotiation. The takeback is complete, but the financial negotiation can go on for a while.

We've actually only been recently engaged by some people wanting to talk about it with regards to their financial compensation. B. Simpson: What is the estimated total that the claw- back will then cost the taxpayers of British Columbia? Hon. R. Coleman: Our estimate is that this won't go over $250 million, which was the original amount. B. Simpson: I believe the original amount was ac- tually $200 million, according to the Forest Act, not $250 million. So that's an increase of $50 million. I'm not sure where the authority comes for that, because the act actually stipulates to pay not more than $200 million.

Where is the auth ority to the minister to pay the additional $50 million, if that's what it turns out to be? [1440] Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. The original amount was $200 million. Additional authority for the $50 million was sought and requested and then given to us by Treasury Board. B. Simpson: I'm confused, because the act stipu- lates that in the 2002-2003 fiscal year the minister is authorized to pay not more than $200 million out of the consolidated revenue fund.

Why stipulate an amount in legislation when you've now gone to Treasury Board and just got whatever you need, which I assume could be over another $50 million? It could be $60 million or whatever, depending on how it turns out. Why two different ways of accessing the funds? My understanding is th at the original $200 million was put in there to give some certainty to what the process was going to be, to let taxpayers know how much this was going to cost . Quite frankly, I wasn't aware there were additional funds here. I'm sure most

6784 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 British Columbians wouldn't be either. Why the differ- ence? Hon. R. Coleman: For the member, just so I don't get it wrong, what I will do is…. We believe that the additional $50 million was provided for in year 2, which would have been somewhere around 2004-2005. I don't have in front of me whether that was done by supplementary estimate or access to contingencies or presented to Treasury Board or whether there had to be any amendment to legislat ion, but I'll get that in- formation for the member. B.

Simpson: With that in mind, where can I go on the ministry's website to get an actual list of which companies have been compensated, how much, and how much they had to give up for that compensation? Hon. R. Coleman: It's not posted on the website; that's why you can't find it on the website. But each one of these would have had a public announcement around it, so we'll provide the member with a list of the companies. B. Simpson: I appreciate the offer, and I look for- ward to it. The real issue, though, is that it's very diffi- cult for the public to go through all of that.

I think one place under the forest revitalization webpage to roll this up would be helpful. The $250 million estimate — what will that come out to on a per-cubic-metre basis? [1445] Hon. R. Coleman: It's about $26 to $30 a cubic me- tre, which includes the tenu re area plus the improve- ments of roads, bridges, etc. B. Simpson: B e c a u s e w e h a v e a b i l l b e f o r e u s , I won't talk about the improvements piece. It's in the bill, so we'll canvass that aspect of it, but I know that it's a problem. I'll leave that. Are there additional costs?

Did the Ministry of For- ests and Range have to put a team together to negotiate this? Were there additional legal costs? Were there things that were incurred to the taxpayer as a result of having to negotiate these clawback arrangements? Hon. R. Coleman: We have a small team that works on giving general direction. We have small teams in each area of the pr ovince that help with iden- tifying the areas, and two people on a part-time basis who do the negotiation. There was never anything added to the operating budget of the ministry for that. We manage that within the budget of the ministry. B.

Simpson: I just want to be clear on the clawback. We're going to come back to the implications of this shortly. When the Forestry Revitalization Act was passed, I recall debating an amendment to this to take the list of companies out of th e act and put it into regu- lations so that you could change it whenever you wanted to. But it's an interesting exercise in history in going through the list and seeing the companies that no longer exist.

When a company ceased to exist as it was bought up — Weldwood, for example, being bought up by West Fraser or Canfor buying up Slocan, etc. — did the com- pensation, if it was not done with the previous company, carry over? Did the new company get compensation for the entire land base that they held at that time? Hon. R. Coleman: The answer is yes. For instance, when Canfor took over Slocan, it was a share takeover. They would have assumed assets and liabilities of the company they were taking over, including if there was something booked of value with regard to takeback, or whatever the case may be.

Whether they accomplished the amount that might have been booked at value at the sale I don't know, but certainly we didn't extinguish the 20-percent takeback be- cause it was part of what we were doing across the sector. [1450] B. Simpson: The reason I'm asking the question is because if the Forest Act had been left the way it was, there would have been an automatic 5-percent take- back in most of those circumstances. As a consequence, we we re paying more than we should have, then, because we would have gotten 5 percent back free, gratis.

So that's a question as to how this was structured, given that it really accelerated cor- porate concentration. One other question I have on this. The minister has indicated that the clawback has occurred. The compen- sation is still being worked out. In the cases where the clawback has occurred, are there licensees still operat- ing in operating areas that have not been clarified as to who's getting those operating areas, whether it's B.C. Timber Sales or woodlots or first nations? Has that all been clarified now? Hon. G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G.

Hogg: We are joined in the gallery today by 24 excited students, who are interested and in- trigued with government; a number of parents; and teachers Lorraine Whitmarsh and Tanya Freiter from the wonderful school in south Surrey that has gained great fame through basketball, education and commu- nity involvement. Would you please welcome these great students from White Rock Christian Academy. Debate Continued Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, there are a few companies. Some of the licensees are actu ally operating in some of the operating areas as we've tried to identify the areas for the other uses of the wood.

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6785 We have found, quite frankly, that as we've tried to negotiate this…. As you know, there's a changing land- scape out there, particularly in the interior. We're try- ing to get our licensees…. We will push a licensee to an area where we think it's operationally more important at this point in time, while we're trying to negotiate, and see if there's another area we can negotiate on after because of the beetle. We don't have that level of operational detail here today with regards to that, but it does happen. B.

Simpson: Just so I'm clear, a company could effec- tively have its clawback determined and be compensated, but it would not have an impact directly on their opera- tions. They're still able to operate and still able to have the same cut levels that they had prior to being paid. [1455] Hon. R. Coleman: In 2003 the cut level dropped by 20 percent. The AAC corporately was reduced by 20 percent. Even if they haven't identified the area, they're still down by the 20 percen t of their AAC, and that hasn't changed. B.

Simpson: In the case of licensees that have op- erations throughout a broad area — for example, Can- for at one point had coastal operations and interior operations — could they shift their clawback around? Could they make the determination of where they wanted their clawback taken from? Hon. R. Coleman: The companies didn't make the determination; we made the determination. It was based on trying to establish enough areas and variety to deal with the market pricing system.

There were instances where, in the best interests of certain things like first nations, it was allo wed that from one area to another we would allow for some of that, but it was on a very minimal level. It was really more geared to be- ing able to have something for the first nations in those particular areas as much as anything. B. Simpson: I h e a r i t ' s B . C .

T i m b e r S a l e s t h a t g e t s first kick at the can in most cases and causes quite sig- nificant grief for people who are looking for the wood- lots that haven't appeared yet or the community forests that haven't appeared yet or areas where first nations haven't gotten it yet. Between the licensees and B.C. Timber Sales, eve- rybody is not getting any kind of opportunity to get a good profile out on the land base. So I dispute the min- ister's comment in that case.

I'll again be curious when we look at Bill 18, be- cause there's an explicit right being given to the district manager to address this issue of licensees operating in areas that are not financially beneficial to the Crown. Let's go on, then, to other costs associated with re- vitalization. There was also the forestry revitalization trust. In the original act, $75 million was put into the forestry revitalization trust. What was the total balance that the trust ultimately got? Hon. R. Coleman: We have 127 FROs with first nations across the province out of 180-some that are possible.

We've actually done a pretty good job of find- ing fibre for first nations. Basically, the legislation, which we'll debate…. The comment the member made about not being financially beneficial is really to push people away from any green wood, to give the regional manager the ability to push them towards the pine wood and leave the green wood for later. [1500] The B.C. Forestry Revitalization Trust was initially set up with $75 million and subsequently increased to $133 million — an extra $50 million from government and $8 million from the investment income of the first $75 million, I guess it was.

It's governed by a trustee who's advised by a board dr awn from major licensees, contractors, organized labour and government. To date, a total of $85.6 million has been paid to 760 im- pacted workers and 198 contractors. B. Simpson: Sorry, I was writing. That last one: how much paid out to how many workers, if you would please, Minister? Hon. R. Coleman: To date, a total of $85.6 million has been paid out. That went to 760 impacted workers and 198 contractors. B. Simpson: When does the minister believe that this trust will wrap up, and how many impacted work- ers is the estimated total? Hon. R.

Coleman: It's estimated that the total amount of the budget that will be used for the total impact of payments to workers is about $46 million, and about $72 million to contractors, for a total of about $118 million. B. Simpson: Thank you for that breakdown again. Any estimate on the number of workers that that will be paid out to and the final numbers on workers or contractors impacted? Hon. R. Coleman: I do have an estimated number of employees at 940. I don't have anything above the 198 estimated contractors. That's what I have in front of me. B.

Simpson: Has the ministry engaged with any other ministries to track these workers post-payout? Where do they go? What happens to the contractors? What happened to the workers? Hon. R. Coleman: No, we don't have a tracking of that. We do know some of them are probably still back working in the industry, and we don't know what they decided to do. Some may have wrapped up their busi- nesses and retired. Other people may have taken the payout because they were close to retirement, and some may be back working. We do not have a tracking of that. [1505]

6786 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B. Simpson: When does the minister expect the revitalization trust work to be wrapped up? Hon. R. Coleman: A t t h i s s t a g e w e d o n ' t h a v e a definitive date. B. Simpson: One of the contentions around the revitalization trust — and we've debated it in this House — is that maybe the wrong group was targeted, that maybe there should have been a target there for the sawmill workers. That's why I asked the qu estion about where these workers went.

If a number of these workers remained in the logging industry, didn't we pay them out for a job that they didn't lose? Hon. R. Coleman: T h e y w e r e l o s i n g t h e i r j o b , o r they were losing their cont ract, and that's why they were paid out. There was nothing that said: "Now you can't go back to work somewhere else." It's like any- body else that actually gets severed from a particular job. If they go seek out another form of employment or employment within the industry and are lucky enough to accomplish that, I guess that's for them.

These peo- ple were going to be losing their jobs as a result of what we were doing, and the compensation payments were made to them. B. Simpson: I guess the contention, though, that was never understood with the Forestry Revitalization Trust was that the cut wasn't disappearing. It was still supposed to be there, but people knew the rationaliza- tion that would occur would probably result in mills being rationalized, and that's where the job loss would come.

Again, that's why we've raised a number of times that the real people who got hurt in this were the people working in the mills who lost their jobs, yet there was no revitalization trust for them. I want to clarify one thing back to the land base, and my apologies for skipping back on that. Are there cases where a company has been compensated and then got an annual allowable cut uplift for whatever reason? Hon. R. Coleman: It is theoretically possible, but there's none that we know of. B. Simpson: I believe TFL 16, if I'm not mistaken….

There's a TFL that was under DFAM that got a substan- tial raise in their annual allowable cut. I think it's in the order of magnitude of 60-odd percent, if I'm not mis- taken. That was one that was owned by Canfor. My understanding is that they were compensated for a clawback on that. I would suggest that the minister may want to look at that. What about beetle uplifts, where companies got an uplift as a result of the beetle after a clawback had been compensated? Hon. R.

Coleman: It could happen in the case of a TFL with regards to pine beetle if the chief forester made, obviously, an increase in the annual allowable cut, particularly to deal with something like pine beetle. It would be a temporary lift because the lift obviously goes up, and the chief forester makes that determination. B. Simpson: The minister talked about AACs com- ing up and down. On the coast haven't we reduced some annual allowable cuts on tree farm licences sub- sequent to the clawback and payout? [1510] Hon. R.

Coleman: While I'm waiting for my staff member to get here, there may have been reductions in the AAC on the coast for a number of reasons. One of them could have been as simple as a protected area was developed or another park or, in some cases, where the EBM is on the central and midcoast areas with regards to land use planning and some of the stuff that comes out of land use planning. All of those things — as the member knows — can have a significant impact on what the ability actually is o f t h e w o r k i n g a r e a o f t h e f o r e s t t o r e a l l y b e a b l e t o function.

It is one of the pres sures that forestry is find- ing, particularly in areas of B.C. like the Sea to Sky cor- ridor up through Squamish, where there's more and more population, and they want to see less and less logging and forestry. Same thing with the areas like the Sunshine Coast, where it becomes more and more difficult — even the Fraser Valley, the upper end, into the area from Hope up through Yale. Those are all areas that I recognize are administered under a whole bunch of other pressures with regards to the ability to have annual allowable cuts.

Sometimes those annual allowable cuts may exist, and the reality is that because of spotted owl or other environmental issues or prot ected areas they can't be achieved. The chief forester has to take that into account. If the member wants to just repeat the portion of his question about the specific TFL number, we may have the information available now. B. Simpson: I don't have the luxury of having staff whip stuff into me, unfortunately. My recollection is that it is in the Clearwater area. It was formally a Slo- can TFL, taken over by Canfor. It should be easy to find, because it was a DFAM.

It was one of the few defined forest area management projects where a rationale was made for a substantive increase in the annual allowable cut. As far as I under- stand, it was post-clawback-in-compensation. While staff have a discussion, the point that the minister is making is that we've always adjusted an- nual allowable cuts up and down. Chief foresters made determinations. My point is that in locations, particu- larly on the coast, we have reduced annual allowable cuts without compensation.

We've got a situation in the interior where we've done a clawback, and in a number of cases we then went and gave an increase in annual allowable cut while we paid for the clawback in annual allowable cut. On the coast we've done a clawback, paid people

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6787 for the clawback and then reduced their AAC without compensation. My question to the mini ster is this: how much would we have gotten back if we had just not done the 20-percent clawback, we had allowed the consolidation to occur, and we had accrued the land base back through the 5-percent takeback? Based on the consoli- dation that's occurred, how much would we have got back? [1515] Hon. R. Coleman: Joining me now is Henry Benskin, RPF, deputy chief forester.

Henry has some understand- ing of these TFLs — more understanding than any of us ever will, that's for sure — and their cut. TFL 37 on the coast did go down slightly. There was one in the interior that may have gone up slight ly. That's the recollection, rather than getting back to specifics when we could get that from a computer at the office. At the same time, we're not in a position to specu- late on the 5-percent questi on the member is asking. We are not in a position to give him an answer today on that or speculate in any way whatsoever. B.

Simpson: I guess one could sit and do the calcula- tion to find out what we would have gotten back. The government, at the time that they did all of this, knew that they were driving consolidation. They knew that it was going to happen. It was an explicit intent in the For- est Act changes over tenure and cut control and parti- tioning of tenure and ministerial oversight of tenure. It strikes me that that ought to have been part of the deliberations so that we didn't have to pay out a quar- ter of a million dollars for clawback.

Again, we're look- ing at $133 million for the workers that have lost their jobs as a result of that program. That's why I ask the question: could we have done this in a different way that didn't cost taxpayers as much? Let me ask one more question on the finances on this before we get into the revitalization act itself., I believe the minister mentioned the $166 million for first nations forest range agreements. The minister stated something about the fact that we must be okay, because FROs and FRAs would have given volume. Well, that volume isn't coming out. That volume still has to be determined.

They have to come and ask. The Ministry of Forests and the district have to go and actually find the volume. That's why I'm pointing out the problem with B.C. Tim- ber Sales and the licences still operating. That volume is sometimes very difficult, if not impossible, to find. The fact that they're given the right to come and ask for volume doesn't mean we've found that volume for them. But in giving those FRAs and FROs, which we'll explore in more detail later on, who bore the cost of that $166-odd million? Where did that money come from? [1520] Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, we don't sign an FRO unless we feel that the wood is in the area that we can identify. We do that with the first nations in consulta- tion as we come into the agreement. As we do that, after we sign the FRO, we find the operating area, be- cause sometimes they want an area with other tradi- tional values outside of just forestry. S o w e w o r k t h r o u g h t h a t w i t h e a c h f i r s t n a t i o n a s we come through it, but we are comfortable with the fact that we have the wood available.

We have to iden- tify it and obviously work with the other licensees in the area and the first nations, to identify the better op- erating areas for them. The annual budget for 2007-2008, which is a revenue- sharing of the FROs, is $49 million. I used the round figure of $50 million earlier. That's in the operating budget of the ministry, and that's the same as it was in '06-07. In '05-06 it was $39 million, and in '04-05 it was $29 million. It depends on how many more FROs we got. They're five-year incremen tal agreements.

They get paid a quarterly payment for five years as part of the capacity-building, so that's why it's cash flow over a number of fiscal years. B. Simpson: I want to be clear that this is out of the Ministry of Forests and Range budget. You have the line allocation for it, and the ministry is bearing the cost and their cost of operation. Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's in the operating budget of the ministry. It's a line it em in the ministry for this particular purpose, and we carry it within our budget. B.

Simpson: Given those calculations then, $250 million or thereabouts for the clawback and $133 mil- lion — although if you take $8 million off of that, let's call it $125 million — and $166 million for first nations. Half a billion dollars for the revitalization strategy. Are there other costs associated with the revitaliza- tion strategy that the taxpayers had to bear? Hon. R. Coleman: Those are the three significant cost items. There might be some operational costs here or there, but nothing that would be identified. I do want to be clear about one thing.

Government was moving towards capacity-building for first nations and looking at opportunities, like forest and range op- portunities, before the Forestry Revitalization Act. I don't think the member intends for the discussion to be that the Forestry Revitalization Act shouldn't have been there for first nations or that first nations shouldn't be allowed to participate in the forest sector. Whatever cost that is with building capacity, new rela- tionship, giving first nations opportunities, it needed to be done whether this Fore stry Revitalization Act had ever been done or not.

The fact of the matter is that the forest and range opportunities are something to help build capacity and build opportunity for first nations. The member is right about a couple of things. One is that I personally as a minister have said to first na- tions forest council and the re st of them that I'd like to see more of the wood move. Some of that may have to do with how we manage to price it in the future to make it more economically viable for first nations and what we can do with that.

6788 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 That work is ongoing, because I certainly would like to see growth in the participation of the first na- tions that have FROs in the actual on-the-ground man- agement of the forest and movi ng the fibre. I think it's important that we get to the next step and get further than we have to date. B. Simpson: I wasn't calling into question the need to do capacity-building with first nations. It's an ex- plicit statement in the Forestry Revitalization Act that this would be part of the Forestry Revitalization Act.

I'm trying to determine the costs of the forestry revi- talization strategy. This was an explicit statement of costs, and that's all I'm trying to do. [1525] With respect to FRAs and FROs and capacity- building, I'm not sure if the minister has read the Audi- tor General's report on treaties, which says they get in the way and that they're not very good for ongoing treaty negotiations. They actually may get in the way of treaty negotiations. We have circumstances where it has unfairly impacted first nations who either have treaty processes in the works or don't qualify for one.

I want to put that on the record that there's a difference of opinion that the Auditor General has about how good these For- ests and Range FROs are. I will explore in more detail the volume issue associated with that shortly. The reason for trying to understand the cost is that this was a massive undertaking. I don't dispute the language of the day and the rhetoric since then — that this was a significant rewriting of the Forest Act, of the way that we do business on the land base, going from a prescriptive Forest Practices Code to the so-called results-based Forest and Range Practices Act.

However, it was also a massive change movement and a massive change initiative. At the same time that this act got put in place, the Ministry of Forests and Range also had a number of peo- ple taken out. I know from my experience that it's a recipe for disaster when you do those two initiatives at the same time — a massive change initiative and a massive down- sizing of your capacity to engage in that change. I want to read something from the heartlands eco- nomic strategy, the forestry revitalization plan.

The previous minister, Minister de Jong at the time, in his introductory comments says: "The manner in which our forest industry and our province developed often unintentionally limited oppor- tunities for new participants in the sector, constraining entrepreneurism and discouraging innovation. " T h e s o l u t i o n i s c l e a r . W e m u s t o p e n u p t h e f o r e s t sector to new opportunities, new participants and new ideas. We must update fore stry regulations. We must undertake comprehensive change with a singular pur- pose: to revitalize British Columbia's forest sector.

"By doing so, we will re invigorate the economic foundation of the province and thereby ultimately im- prove the quality of life for every British Columbian." Did we achieve that goal? The Chair: Member, just to remind you that you refer to the member through his constituency, rather than the name. B. Simpson: My apologies. Hon. R. Coleman: I think today, if you look at the periodicals and different reports — whether they come from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers or dif- ferent publications — that British Columbia is actually leading the way in forest policy in this country.

I do believe that in the interior of B.C. we have today one of most competitive forest sectors in the world. They probably have the best oper ations and technologies of anybody they compete with. As the member knows, that's not the case for the coast. The coast is facing a bunch of significant chal- lenges, not the least of whic h are aging plants and ac- cess to fibre, like the member mentioned earlier. Some of the stresses on the land base and issues in and around that we're trying to address, as the member knows, in the near future. Did it accomplish its goals? I think it's a work in progress.

I think it did accomplish a lot of its goals, and it has more to accomplish. That's why we continue to work on it — for us to be able to make the changes, if necessary, as we go along and learn from doing this. I think you learn by doing; you don't learn by sitting back and doing nothing. [1530] B. Simpson: As someone who worked in the inte- rior and knows the interior very well, I would chal- lenge the minister's contention that it's competitive in the global marketplace. There are a lot of factors in- volved there. Yes, they are very good sawmillers — no question.

They have the latest and the greatest technology — no question. But the only year that they made significant money was the year that they got the most substantive beetle uplifts and had two-bit wood. The year after that, when the market in the U.S. was still hot, they started losing money. They started finding it very diffi- cult to make money. My question wasn't around whether or not we should have sat still or what we should have done. My question is: has the ministry or the minister done a substantive evaluation of the revitalization strategy — all of its components?

It had very explicit, stated, intended outcomes. Has that been evaluated against the fact that we are now four years into it and half a b illion dollars of taxpayers' money have gone into it? Is the ministry or the minister's office doing a point-for-point analysis of whether or not we've made the changes that we were hoping to make? [H. Bloy in the chair.] Hon. R. Coleman: We benchmark annually. We feel there are areas of the forest sector that we have no control over as a jurisdiction, which are the U.S. dollar and markets — t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g — because they're international.

The B.C. interior does bett er than any other area of Canada. It beats out a number of areas around the

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6789 world. The B.C. coast and interior are also ahead of a number of other jurisdictions. We have done things like global log cost variables — delivered log costs, global delivered log costs. The ministry's responsibility is to have an environ- ment that people can compete within. I think the sig- nificant change was trying to get to where we'd have a market pricing system so that people could establish the pricing of logs versus the old stumpage system that, as the member knows, was quite complicated and oftentimes under attack in some way or another.

We benchmark annually. From the Forests Ministry's perspective, which is the job that we're talking about here, and from the budget that is deployed in this minis- try because we're in the estimates debate, we're having successes in our benchmarks and in our annual analysis, and we'll continue. We monitor that annually, and we'll continue to do so and adapt in the future. [1535] The one thing you can't do — I know the member knows this — in this industry is stay static. If you stay static in this industry, you don't react quickly enough to markets and opportunities.

We have to, as a ministry, be pretty progressive, which I think my staff are. My senior management, and actually my managers across B.C., are p r o b a b l y s o m e o f t h e b e s t i n t h e w o r l d . T h e y b e n c h - mark. They watch it. They feed into the ministry and the minister, and we watch how our operations are. B. Simpson: My question was more as a change initiative to the internal metrics, not the external met- rics and not the benchmarking against elsewhere. There were explicit, intended outcomes in the Forestry Revitalization Act.

As an example, in the he artlands economic strategy it talks about 27 mills having closed permanently and 13,000 forest workers having lost their jobs in B.C. since 1997. How many mills have closed, and how many people have lost their jobs since 2001? Hon. R. Coleman: I d o k n o w t h a t d u r i n g t h e l a s t five years of the former government and the first five years of this government, there were more mill clo- sures under the former government. I do know that. I'll try and get the member the list of those. I do know they were awful close, though, in numbers. I mean, let's be fair there.

The one thing that is an interesting fact and figure, which we do have for the member with regards to forest revitalization, is that employment in the forest sector in 2006 actually in creased by 2.4 percent to 81,600 people. That's reversing the trend that had been experienced for years in the forest sector, particularly even in the previous thr ee years. There had been a drop in numbers of people in the forest sector, and the trend reversed on the number of people employed in the forest sector. B.

Simpson: I think that's called mountain pine beetle salvage and private land logging, so I'm not quite sure how helpful that number is. Again, what I'm hearing the minister say is that we haven't been tracking. Is that right? We haven't been tracking the number of mills closed and the number of jobs lost since the revitalization strategy was put in place. [1540] Hon. R. Coleman: We can probably get the mem- ber the list of mills that have closed in the last 15 years. We can probably produce that list. We can't do it right now, but we probably could.

We do know that a num- ber have been closed for va rious reasons. As the mem- ber well knows, sometimes mills close because they change what they're doing, because they're underfi- nanced or because of markets. We also know that in 2006, West Fraser had started up its new $110 million supermill in Quesnel — during the fourth quarter of 2006. TallOil is investing $110 million to create 640 jobs from forest licences awarded to the company to manufacture industrial pellets for the European bioenergy market. Ainsworth Lumber is to invest by 2009 with regard to an oriented strand board plant.

Western Forest Products announced it would invest $13 million in its Cowichan Bay sawmill and in November 2006 announced that it would be investing $2 million in Saltai r near Ladysmith. At the same time, in fairness, they closed the New Westmin- ster mill to open Saltair, so one closed and one opened. There have been other investments made. I don't know whether it's too early to just give the member all the numbers. I mean, we can do an assess- ment.

We know how the industry is year to year, but I don't know that you can today make the decision that the Forestry Revitalization Act has been a total success or not a total success. I do think that it's changed the landscape and stabilized the environment. People know there's a mark et pricing system, people know what the takeback did, and people know that first nations now have opportunitie s. It's set a pretty good direction that we will work with as we go forward. B. Simpson: I will deal with the Ainsworth and TallOil claims later on, because those claims are ques- tionable.

Western Forest Products is again doing some of their adjusting. There were other mills that were closed, whether it was Cascadia or whoever. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is: what is the government internally benchmarking as the success or failure of a half-billion dollar project and as substan- tive change? Let's go into it a little bit deeper. There's an un- stated intent of the forest revitalization strategy, the act, the changes and so on — to prevent a softwood lumber agreement.

If we changed the tenures, if we made our public tenure holding more like private, if we did the market pricin g system, if we freed up mills from appurtenancy requ irements, if we took the ministerial oversight away from tenure changes and everything else, there was an unstated intent — although there's some explicit documents to that effect — that this was an attempt to avoid a softwood

6790 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 lumber agreement. Does the minister agree with that contention? Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I guess the member is reading something between the lines that I'm not read- ing. The fact of the matter is that we did the Forest and Range Practices Act for domestic purposes, to change how we operate internally in British Columbia. There was no stated purpose that we would avoid a softwood lumber agreement. I mean, how could you possibly even think that? How could you even say that in an environment where there's been 30 years of litigation with regard to this?

Maybe one of the purposes was to reposition us better with regard to softwood, which I think was accom- plished, but certainly there is no stated purpose at any time that the changes we're making were going to bring a removal of any softwood arrangement with the United States of America. B. Simpson: Mr. Chair, let me challenge that. We had Mr.

Aldonas up here looking at what we were do- ing here, with the express purpose of finding out if these Forest Act changes would allow us to avoid an- other softwood lumber agreement. [1545] My question to the minister is: were we not in nego- tiations with the United States, and were we not confer- ring with United States members of their trade group, the Council of Forest Industries and the B.C. Lumber Trade Council to attempt through the forest revitaliza- tion strategy to avoid a softwood lumber agreement? Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we brought Mr. Aldonas up here.

We explained to him what we're doing to show him so that when he was at any table in the United States with regards to disc ussions in and around soft- wood and duties…. At that time there were duties and there were arguments legally back and forth on soft- wood. But if the member thinks that Mr. Aldonas could possibly come up to Canada, see what we were doing — by the way, the right thing with regards to forest prac- tices and the right thing with regards to moving to mar- ket pricing and the right thing for our domestic purposes to stabilize the future of our industry….

I f h e t h i n k s t h a t h e c o u l d g o b a c k t o t h e U n i t e d States and deal with the softwood lumber lobby in the United States, which is a very strong political group in itself, in the southeastern part of the United States par- ticularly — who, quite frankly, at any time will never, ever agree that British Columbia or Canada can have free access to their marketplace in forestry….

The reason for that is be cause there are inefficient operators, but there are also land barons down in the southeastern part of the United States who grow trees and want to keep the value of the tree up — to the det- riment of their marketplace, quite frankly. But they actually do have the ability to push on any negotiation side where that situation can occur. The reality for us was that we made these changes for domestic purposes, certainly with some optimism that it might mitigate a future negotiation that we may have with the United States.

But I don't think that any- time anybody thought there wouldn't be any form of softwood lumber agreement ha ving to be achieved if you're going to stabilize the market access to the U.S. B.

Simpson: S o t h e m i n i s t e r i s c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e removal of appurtenance, th e removal of tenure over- sights, the attempt to claw back — and he states explicitly to get back to 50 percent free logs into the market — the removal of cut control, the market pricing system — all of that was not recommended to us as a way to avoid, not mitigate; a way to be excluded from a future softwood lumber agreement after the old agreement died in 2001. That between 2001 and 2003 there was not a back-and- forth with parties around how we avoid another soft- wood lumber agreement.

That the wrap-up of all of these — the breaking of the social contract, the freeing up of tenures, the market pricing system, the clawback — was not an attempt not to mitigate but to avoid a softwood lumber agreement…. Hon. R. Coleman: The changes we made referred to our own domestic purpos es. Certainly, there were back-and-forth discussions. As I understand it now, that was five or six years ago. I wasn't in on those dis- cussions — whether it would buy us any peace or buy us anything with the U.S. [1550] There certainly was, obviously, the U.S.

Trade Representative back-and-for th, and discussions with the federal government would have taken place at that time. We would keep them apprised of whatever changes we would make in our forest sector. We were trying, obviously — I would surmise — to mitigate some of the concerns the U.S. had with regards to the punitive duties they were putting on our product after the expiry of the previous agreement.

I don't think that it would avoid a softwood lumber agreement, but it may get us to the table to get one that we thought might be fair or acceptable to our industry and to our country — as one of the players in the country perhaps.

Certainly, we made these decisions back in 2001, 2002, 2003, because we had reports from people like Pe- ter Pearse and recommendations from people across the country and experts in forestry t h a t s a i d : " Y o u n e e d t o change the dynamic of your forest sector going for- ward." So we made a lot of those changes because of that type of work that was done in and outside of govern- ment, as I would understand it. But we didn't make the decisions and make these ch anges solely for the pur- poses of something to do with the U.S. and softwood. B.

Simpson: I won't belabour that point, but let's take the minister's own language. It was an attempt to mitigate. Did it? Hon. R. Coleman: I have learned one thing as a minister. It's a long road when it comes to softwood, but I believe that, yes, it did accomplish a number of things.

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6791 First of all, we were co ntinuing to win on certain areas with regards to litigation, which I think brought the U.S. to realize that a lot of the changes that we made were defensible. We have our market pricing system recognized in the so ftwood lumber agreement, which we would have never had before. It has brought us closer to being able to start some discussions with regards to logs for lumber, with regards to some of the issues on the coast, on priv ate logs, as the member is aware.

More importantly, I think it's a body of work that leads us down the road to — whether it's four or seven years when this agreement expires…. It protects us against future countervaillance with regards to it, be- cause I think that people are seeing the system working for a period of time and the changes in place, and it gives us a stronger case go ing forward. That's the ad- vice I get from people that are way more trained in trade law than I am and ever will be, quite frankly. I think that a lot of the things we did actually have had positive results with regards to that piece of the file. B.

Simpson: I n w h a t w a y w a s B . C . t r e a t e d d i f f e r - ently than the rest of Canada? If we had done all these changes, we had created the kind of pain that we've created in many coastal communities, the clawback and all of the change that occurred…. The minister said part of the intent was to mitigate a future softwood lumber agreement. What kind of a better deal did B.C. get than the rest of Canada? [1555] Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as I said, the MPS system is recognized in the softwood lumber agree- ment. Now, that's very significant.

Nobody else has an MPS system across this country that has a system recognized within softwood. More importantly, it's going to help us deal. It will have a huge impact on our softwood exports in the future and our whole milling and everything in the interior as we see the declin e in the value of the moun- tain pine beetle, simply because the market pricing system will reflect that. That allows for not having an a r g u m e n t o v e r w h e t h e r w e s e t a r t i f i c i a l s t u m p a g e o r not, with regards to the decl ining value of that particu- lar stuff.

The other issue in and around softwood was that the rest of this country, I think, wanted to go for a quota system that would see a lower tax but wouldn't allow for an identification of market share. It was to their benefit to do that, because they were actually seeing declining markets,

whereas our market share was going up in the U.S. So we protected our market share in the agreement — plus 10 percent, plus a 1- percent surge. Those two things were probably different than any- thing else. But I have to remind the member that the deal is actually a U.S.-Can ada softwood lumber deal. It's not a B.C.-U.S. softwood lumber deal. It is an agreement for a country. The federal government cer- tainly knew at that time — and the previous one too — and will balance off based on whatever issues are in front of them with regards to these things too.

That's why it is a very difficult, dynamic file — quite frankly. B. Simpson: Did recognition of our market pricing system result in a lower border tax for British Columbia? Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows directly that it did not — right? Fine, I'll accept the question in the spirit that it's given. However, the tax — whatever it is at the border at any given time — is based on what price people are being paid on a market pricing system for wood. So if the wood price goes down, the tax goes down. It doesn't go down by a percentage.

It stays at the same percentage of value, but if the value goes down, it's a percentage of a lower value. That's where the big- gest advantage of an MPS system and a tax that's tied to it is — on the value side. Wh en you see the price come down at the border, then it has an effect, because that's how we calculate what they pay us in stumpage. I s a i d t h a t w r o n g . T h e y p a y u s l o w e r s t u m p a g e — right? — which brings the firs t-mill price down, which should give them an advantage on what hits the border.

They're still tied to the U.S. composite price, but the market pricing system will bring down the price that they're paying for the raw fibre simply because if the price comes down, that's where the benefit comes in. B. Simpson: Wow. Bottom line — basically, we didn't really get a mitigation on the deal. We got the same deal as everybody else. Yes, we got an adjust- ment on quota. But you know, one could argue that B.C. could have done that anyway. The minister's comments with respect to "it's a Canada-U.S. deal" fly in the face of comments that the minister was making last year about being the big dog.

" I ' m d r i v i n g t h e b u s . B . C . i s t h e b i g g e s t p l a y e r i n t h e industry." The whole works. Because I challenged the minister in the House, the minister said that B.C. was driving the bus and making sure it was a deal that was good for B.C. If we were driving the bus and the intent of the revitalization strategy was to get some mitigation on a future deal — if not to avoid the deal, as I contend that it is — then the answer to my qu estion is: we didn't get much of a deal. We got the same as everybody else. We're getting a 15-percent border tax and, when we go into surge, 22.5 percent.

The minister has raised interesting comments. First, on the market pricing system : what is the U.S. scrutiny of our market pricing system? [1600] Hon. R. Coleman: Quite frankly, in forests in this country British Columbia is the big dog on the block. We ship more to the United States than most jurisdic- tions combined. The fact of the matter is that when we were doing the softwood negotiations, if our com- panies had not agreed to the framework agreement — and told me that they agr eed to the framework agree- ment — we would never have said to the federal

6792 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007 g o v e r n m e n t t ha t w e w e r e i n f a v o u r o f t h e f r a m e w o r k agreement. We would never have gone there, because it was a negotiation. They were engaged nationally, across the country, with other lumber trade councils like the Canadian lumber trade council, which was also out here at the time. They actually were very much a big part of the decision to go forward, and if they hadn't said so, we wouldn't have. Just so the member knows, we have an obligation under

article 17 of the softwood lumber agreement, which means that we provide information to Canada, because again, I'm reminding the member that it's a Canadian-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. In that particular agreement between the two countries, we provide information with regards to changes that would be made, but MPS is grandfathered in the agreement. Our market pricing sys- tem was protected in the softwood lumber agreement, and it was done very much because that was a position we were not prepared to move off of. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] On the clarification to the member — just on the other thing, the convoluted answer I gave earlier, which I will try and improve on — there are two sys- tems that came out of softwood. A jurisdiction can go on either one of the two sy stems. They can choose to either go to a quota system, which was option B, or to a non-quota system, which was option A, based on mar- ket share. Most of the rest of the country, with the ex- ception of Alberta, went with option B, and we went with option A, like Alberta did. The companies discussed that decision with us as we came through.

They agreed to the structure of those two opportunities. The reason those two were there was because, quite frankly, a couple of the jurisdictions in this country I don't think have a very big vision for the future of their forest sector. They think a quota is just fine, because they'll just ship to the border, by quarte r, a certain amount of vol- ume. They actually are prob ably seeing that they've been overharvesting for too long, and their annual al- lowable cuts are going to come down. Their mills are not efficient enough to compete.

Under the quota system, you can take a smaller tax, but you get less volume. When you're dealing with an issue like we are with mountain pine beetle, we felt it was important to go the other way. That's why the two options were there. And no, because it's a national tax, hon. Member, we didn't get any different percentage of tax at the border th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0417pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0417pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6bff0c598f3a550f609e83b7c31f6e872f6e628c

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