Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 137

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

L. Doerkson

T. Stone

On the amendment

T. Stone

P. Milobar

T. Halford

S. Furstenau

R. Merrifield

A. Olsen

C. Oakes

E. Ross

M. Bernier

On the main motion

Hon. K. Conroy

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 29 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 29 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

Hon. L. Beare

M. de Jong

B. Banman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

(continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[1. That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining stages

of consideration of the following bills before the House be disposed of

prior to the conclusion of the afternoon sitting on Tuesday, November

23, 2021:

a. Bill (No. 23) intituled Forests Statutes Amendment

Act, 2021 .

b. Bill (No. 29) intituled

Interpretation Amendment Act,

2021 .

2. That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), the question on the

motion for second reading of Bill (No. 28) intituled Forest

Amendment Act, 2021 , and the question on any motion in

amendment thereto, be put by 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 2021,

without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called,

it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16

(2).

3. That, if at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 2021, any bill

listed under

section 1 is still being considered at Committee stage, the

Chair shall forthwith put the question on all remaining clauses and the

title of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be

deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call,

but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Once the title of the bill has passed, the Committee shall rise and the

Chair shall forthwith report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

4. That, by 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 2021, notwithstanding

Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional

Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the

question on all remaining stages of consideration of any bill listed

under

section 1 shall be put forthwith without amendment or

debate.

5. That, if a division is called on the motion for third reading of

any bill listed under

section 1, the division shall proceed forthwith in

accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

6. That, pursuant to standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining stages

of consideration of the following bills before the House be disposed of

by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 25, 2021:

a. Bill (No. 22) intituled Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 .

b. Bill (No. 28) intituled Forest Amendment Act,

2021 .

[1:35 p.m.]

7. That, if at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 25, 2021, any bill

listed under

section 6 is still being considered at Committee stage, the

Chair shall forthwith put the question on all remaining clauses and the

title of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be

deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call,

but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Once the title of the bill has passed, the Committee shall rise and the

Chair shall forthwith report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

8. That, notwithstanding

section 7, if at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday,

November 25, 2021, the Committee has not considered the amendments to

Bill (No. 22) standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of

Citizens’ Services, they shall be dealt with as follows:

a. Clause 36 shall be deemed defeated.

b. The amendment to clause 48 shall be deemed to have

passed, and clause 48, as amended, shall be deemed to have

passed.

9. That, by 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, November 25, 2021,

notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing

Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of

any bill listed under

section 6 shall be put forthwith without amendment

or debate.

10. That, if a division is called on the motion for third reading of

any bill listed under

section 6, the division shall proceed forthwith in

accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).]

[1:40 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 26

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate of Bill 28, Forest

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I called continued Committee of the

Whole for Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

L. Doerkson: I’ll try to start where I left off last evening. Where that was is

I was trying to paint a picture. There was much conversation in the

chamber yesterday about words used, like fearmongering and those types

of things. I was trying to, I guess, share with all of the members of

the House why people might be fearful. I’m certainly one of those

people.

To paint a bit of a picture, within district boundaries of

Williams Lake, we have six mills. Now, they’re varying types of mills,

but we have six very large operations right within the city limits of

Williams Lake. We have a mill in 100 Mile House that is a significant

operation in what is obviously a very small community. We have the West

Chilcotin Forest Products, which is also another very successful mill

that provides a lot of employment west of Williams Lake. And we have

many small mills throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Above that, we have many value-added, lumber-type operations where

we have, of course, log home building. Some of the world’s largest log

home builders are there in Cariboo-Chilcotin, along with timber frame

construction as well. The fear that we’ve talked about, of course, is

how Bill 28 — and, to be honest, other bills that have been introduced

to this house — will affect those businesses and those people. To be

honest, it’s unclear.

Part of what we started to discuss yesterday is the frustration of

the timing of these bills. We’ve had all kinds of time here in this

House to discuss these bills. Just moments ago, of course, closure has

been imposed upon us. It’s not just myself that wanted to speak to Bill

28; there is certainly a number of people. Certainly, other members in

this House have been speaking to Bill 28. But the idea that the debate

on this bill is quickly coming to an end when so many British Columbians

have wanted to come to this place to rally, to protest, to be heard on

these bills…. The idea that that is now not going to happen is extremely

frustrating to me and certainly other members of this place.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bill 28 allows the government to reduce timber harvesting rights

of the existing tenure that is in place, and it allows it to

redistribute those rights. The plan suggests that this will create new

opportunities for new innovation and new companies. I would argue that

new companies are certainly not going to be interested in investing

millions of dollars when we are in a position in this House to strip

companies that have invested for decades in our economy and our

communities.

The idea that everybody is happy about this, in my mind, is false,

and it’s very false. I have heard from very few people in my riding that

are excited about these changes, and particularly, I want to speak about

First Nations — First Nations that have worked extremely hard to build

relationships with many of the large companies of this

province.

Likewise, the companies have done a great job of reaching out to

First Nations and building not only relationships but partnerships. Some

of the largest companies in my riding are partnerships between First

Nations and those logging companies. Those First Nations stand to lose

tenure that they currently have through those partnerships. In my mind,

that is wrong. It will hurt our region, and certainly rural B.C., in a

very big way.

I touched on it. I can’t imagine, though, that people or

businesses that are watching this happen, watching companies that have

invested so much in our province, being stripped of that tenure…. I

cannot imagine that that is going to be an incentive to look to invest

in this province. The introduction of these deferrals and transfer of

tenures is going to have a horrendous effect on the province. It’s not

just me saying that. Many have spoken out against this. We’ve all heard

in this House, over the last number of weeks, groups like COFI that have

spoken about the loss of, potentially, 18,000 jobs, and potentially 14

to 20 mills.

The bill suggests that transfers will be transferred to First

Nations, and I have given some thoughts on that, but again, I cannot…. I

wish that somebody would explain this to me, because I have asked it

outside the doors of this chamber — how that will encourage new

business. First Nations are also concerned, along with mills and tenure

holdings. They are extremely concerned about special purpose areas.

These are defined in this act, but they’re not defined by size. They’re

not defined by location.

The fear is that these special purpose areas, along with the

potential of repatriating younger forests into what we’re referring to

as old growth, is also a very serious concern. There is no clarity

around that. That message, of course, around special purpose areas,

needs to be clear before this bill can pass. People have to understand

what they’re referring to in these special purpose areas.

Will those areas be decided by age? It appears, as I said, that

we’re pulling younger stands of trees — i.e., 40 or 50 years old — into

the old-growth category. For many of the logging operations, certainly

in my riding…. I can’t speak for others, but many of the operations in

my riding are logging in those trees as a regular course of business.

This is where that is fearful. That’s where these businesses are fearful

of losing that tenure, because in some of those areas, that 40- or

50-year-old growth is actually a second generation.

Of course, this is obviously what I and many refer to as a

renewable resource. The concern is really around the age of those trees,

the location of those trees and the size of those forests that might be

protected under these special growth areas.

There is a question around stumpage. Do not get me wrong, in this

House. I think we’ve even talked about it on both sides of this House —

the possible encouragement of different levels of stumpage. We’ve talked

about some of the ways that we could better manage our

forests.

[1:55 p.m.]

I know that in my riding particularly, I have companies that would

be glad to make better use of the piles of debris that we burn

currently. Now, I know that we’re using some of that to make chips and

different types of heating materials, which are exports out of this

province. I know that we’re making use of it in some ways.

Oftentimes in my area, while we don’t, obviously, use the beehive

burners of the past, we simply light them up in big piles and burn them.

There are a number of companies that would make use of that as heating

wood in areas, particularly, that don’t have access to natural gas or

other forms of heat. So there are better things we could be

doing.

Rather than hammering on these tenure transfers, we could be

encouraging and incentivizing companies to do better and to do better

with things like that that we describe, honestly, as waste. I can’t

imagine that we should be using that word in any way. We should be

making use of everything that we possibly can.

Up until now, I’ve talked mostly about mills and focused on larger

forestry companies. I want to talk a little bit about the compensation.

I know that it’s been discussed here, too, with respect to compensation

that the mills may receive as tenure holders. But again, that hasn’t

been clear. What also has not been clear is that there has been

conversation about bridging to retirement. Now, I guess we can have all

kinds of rhetoric around that, but the problem is that this is an

extremely large hole to fill.

My fear is that when we talk about bridging to retirement and we

refer to people who may have had the good fortune of working in one of

these mills for 20 or 30 years, built a pension and have the ability to

retire to that pension, well, this might have some success for those

people. But for many people who perhaps haven’t worked in the industry

for a long time, they’re simply going to be displaced. I mean, let’s

face it. Whether they’re young or whether they’re my age, if they’re

displaced now, it’s a long time to retirement, and without a pension,

it’s going to be difficult for many.

What’s worse is the contractors who are caught in the crossfire of

all of this that’s going on — the contractors who have millions of

dollars of debt in machinery that costs an unbelievable amount to

operate in this business. With what is, really, little notice to these

tenure transfers and such, these contractors are caught in a really bad

place. Even if they wanted to get rid of their equipment, I can’t

imagine what the prices would be like, at auction, for these people who

are stuck in the middle of this government bill.

What about the indirect employees? This is where…. I think my

colleague across the way and I are going to talk about it in the future,

and we’ve talked about it in the past. But what about the impact that

this is going to have on all those people who are indirectly affected by

bills like this? Because I know that normally we focus on that target,

and I know that this is directed at a certain group of people. But what

about the glass shop? What about the restaurants that make their living

from the success of that forest industry and, also, could see their

demise because of the damage we do to the forest industry?

So many of these businesses are already challenged in such

difficult ways because of COVID, and with bills like this one, 28, I

very much am concerned that it could have a very serious impact on

small-town B.C. and rural British Columbia. I’m going to get to the city

in a minute, but certainly it’s a scary thing for those

folks.

With respect to the city, 40 percent of the jobs are in the Lower

Mainland. How will these tenure transfers affect those jobs and, again,

all the spinoff jobs? I’m very concerned that we are focused on 18,000

jobs and that that number could very much grow much bigger.

[2:00 p.m.]

Oftentimes, I think, when people think of logging or these types

of operations, they obviously refer to rural British Columbia. Let me

just point out a few companies that do business in the Lower Mainland:

Andersen Pacific Forest Products, Maple Ridge; Cedarland Forest

Products, Maple Ridge; Fraserview Cedar Products, Surrey; Agassiz;

Surrey Cedar Ltd., Langley; the Waldun Group, Maple Ridge; Watkins

Sawmills, Mission; Surrey; Surrey; Richmond; Haida Forest Products in

Burnaby; Jasco Forest Products in Abbotsford; Chilliwack, Abbotsford;

Pacific Western Wood Works in Delta; Terminal Forest Products in

Richmond.

The list goes on and on and on. There’s an unbelievable impact to

the Lower Mainland as well. I don’t know how funding, bridging,

transfers…. I don’t know how any of that is going to play out for the

folks in the Lower Mainland, in the city.

People are not pleased about these bills in my riding. They’ve

expressed their concerns. I mentioned yesterday, while we were sitting

here debating this very bill, I had received an email. Well, this

morning I’ve received a number more. Today we heard from a constituent

of mine in question period. People are upset. People are upset because

they’re filling in blanks in places…. They don’t know what is about to

happen to their business.

I’ve also asked in this House about the socioeconomic studies that

have been debated and talked about in this House. They’ve not been

presented to me. These are serious decisions, and if we haven’t done

those studies, for heaven’s sake, we must do them before we make this

into law.

Again, I want to say that uncertainty is not going to encourage

investment in this province. Taking tenure away from companies that have

invested in this province for decades is going to send a very, very bad

message to people that are looking to invest in this forest industry in

British Columbia.

I know that our forests are renewable. I’ve seen it with my own

eyes. I have seen habitat that has been created by logging. I have seen

forests that have actually been improved by logging. I’ve seen blowdown.

I’ve seen beetle wood. I’ve seen firewood been cleaned out of the

forest. I’ve seen the forest disregarded so badly that animals could not

manoeuvre through the forest because of blowdown and because of those

types of items.

If you want to encourage ingenuity in this province…. We need to

encourage new practices, better ways of doing things, but not by just

stripping companies of what they currently have.

It’s not just me that has talked about this. I want to read out a

couple of quotes. I’ll try to read some that haven’t been necessarily

heard here before. The B.C. Council of Forest Industries says: “Small,

medium, large, family-owned and Indigenous-owned forestry companies,

contractors, suppliers and workers are extremely concerned that the

province is moving in this direction.”

B.C. Council of Forest Industries again: “Our strong hope is that

the province will commit to a fact-based, balanced and inclusive

approach, including meaningful engagement with Indigenous nations,

forest professionals and other local experts, before proceeding with

decisions that could irreparably harm workers, companies and communities

across this province.”

One that is very interesting to me is the Greater Vancouver Board

of Trade. “While there are many forestry-dependent communities across

B.C., the sector is also a major employer in urban areas, including

greater Vancouver. It is estimated that close to half the employees in

the forest industry work in Metro Vancouver.”

[2:05 p.m.]

This is a very serious bill that is before us. It is serious

because it’s compounding on another bill that is also before this House.

As I said before, it’s frustrating that we are not going to debate, or

not be able to debate in its entirety, this bill.

People want their voices heard on Bill 28. For certain, they

wanted it. That’s why they planned a protest on this front lawn. I hope

that those people are able to come and be heard this week.

Interior Logging Association says: “Without proper representation

of all parties, a real solution that is best for all British Columbians

will not be realized. The loss of any job is unacceptable, and without

proper socioeconomic study to fully understand the effects of such a

drastic shift in forest policy, the B.C. government will be making

policy decisions that are not balanced or fair to British

Columbians.”

I guess, for me, that’s where I would wrap up. If the government

does have a socioeconomic study, I would love to see it. I think that

it’s owed to the people of British Columbia, particularly the people and

the communities that are going to be most hard hit by this bill and

others.

To be honest, I can’t believe, again, that this late in the

Legislature of this session…. I cannot believe that we are having this

debate with two days left to go, when so many people want to be

heard.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 28 today.

I hope that we will see that socioeconomic study. In the worst way, I

hope we’ll see it.

T. Stone: It gives me, I usually say, pleasure to stand and speak to

legislation in this House. It’s just a nice way to begin, I think, one’s

remarks on a piece of legislation. I won’t use the word “pleasure.” I

won’t say it’s my pleasure to stand and speak on Bill 28 today. I am

going to speak to it.

Frankly, it is nothing short of outrageous that we’re sitting here

on Tuesday, November 23, and this Legislature is being asked to

accelerate our consideration, our scrutiny, of Bill 28. And if we don’t

complete all of the different stages, the required stages, of analyzing

this bill — second reading, which we’re in at the moment, and committee

stage, which would follow this — the government will be invoking closure

time allocation and requiring Bill 28 to essentially be deemed to be

scrutinized and analyzed and reviewed and discussed and debated in this

House no later than 5 p.m. this Thursday, November 25.

Now, I will get into the actual content of the bill, from a second

reading perspective, and some observations and concerns. But how is it

possible that with a six-week session and a legislative calendar, which

this government is responsible for…? How is it possible that we spent

the first two to three weeks of this legislative session being asked to

essentially fill time to debate a range of miscellaneous statutes

amendment acts?

The government waits until it is about more than halfway through

the legislative session to decide to bring in some pretty hefty pieces

of legislation. I would count Bill 22, the freedom of information

amendment act, in that category as well.

[2:10 p.m.]

Bill 28, which I’m speaking about here now…. These are fundamental

changes to our forest sector. This bill, along with Bill 23, provides

for a significant overhaul, not all good, that requires scrutiny of this

place, requires every member in this House that wants to stand up and

articulate the concerns of their constituents to be able to do so, but

to be able to do so in a reasonable period of time.

We are literally being asked to take a 74-section bill here, the

Forest Amendment Act, Bill 28…. We’re not anywhere close to committee

stage on this bill. We’re in second reading, on a Tuesday, two days

before this entire bill is supposed to be scrutinized and approved by

this Legislature. How is there any definition other than outrageous for

that?

What do we say to our constituents back in Williams Lake? What do

we say to our constituents in Chetwynd? What do we say to our

constituents in Quesnel or my constituency of Kamloops? What do we say

up the North Thompson Valley? What do we say to all of those workers and

families who are going to be impacted by the changes that this

government is making to forestry legislation in the province? Are we

supposed to go back to our constituencies and say: “While the changes

were brought forward, they weren’t brought forward with more than about

a week to ten days to actually scrutinize the legislation”?

Of course, the opposition doesn’t control the timing of bills

being introduced in this place. We don’t control which bill is debated

before which other bill. We don’t control which of the legislative

chambers here the legislation is debated in. We don’t control how many

chambers are even open at any given time. That’s all in the purview of

the government.

We’re supposed to go back to our constituents and say: “Yeah, they

introduced pretty substantive changes in a couple of pieces of forestry

legislation,” including Bill 28 here, “but they didn’t allow any time to

debate it. They didn’t allow a reasonable period of time to scrutinize

it. Oh, well, yeah, there are going to be pretty substantive

changes.”

It’s not the opposition making up the numbers related to impact.

The Council of Forest Industries says the impact of the changes in Bill

28, on top of the proposed changes in Bill 23, on top of — on top of, on

top of — the cumulative impacts of changes that this government has made

related to the forest industry in this province….

The employment impact is anticipated to be about 18,000 lost

direct and indirect jobs. That’s not the opposition just throwing a dart

at a board. That’s not us making it up. That’s not an opposition number.

That’s a Council of Forest Industries number, and it’s backed up by

virtually every other forestry association and organization in this

province. Even the Steelworkers and even Unifor say that the changes

that the government is proposing in Bill 28 — again, coupled with the

changes in Bill 23 and all the other impacts — are going to

significantly cost employment. They’re very worried about

that.

But no, we’re expected to take Bill 28 and Bill 23 and Bill 29,

the range of other pieces of legislation that still haven’t completed

second reading…. We’re just supposed to look past it, just say a few

words, I guess, passing words on this, and let’s move into committee,

and, oh, we’ll ask a few token questions, because that’s all that we

have time for.

This really is another proof point of just how little regard this

government has for the process of this place. I mean, you consider the

changes that they’re making to freedom of information and making those

changes by short-circuiting the statutory committee that’s charged with

actually making recommendations to government — and just how secretive

and tight-lipped, notwithstanding multi-million-dollar communications

budgets, including in FLNRO that you can’t actually get any information

out of. These communication departments don’t communicate, certainly not

with the outside world and with the opposition.

[2:15 p.m.]

Here we are in this legislative session — six weeks of time, 24

days of legislative time — and we are told: “No. Sorry. We’re wrapping

up this Thursday. We know we’ve dumped more than half of our entire

legislative agenda on the opposition beyond the halfway point, the

second half of the legislative session. But sorry, it’s your problem.

It’s up to you guys.” The process stinks. It’s outrageous. That’s a word

I’m going to keep using: it’s outrageous. I’d like to hear from

government members, NDP members, especially those that represent forest

communities. Are they happy?

There are a bunch of them that haven’t spoken to this legislation

yet. Are they happy that we’re going to take a 74-section bill and we’re

going to — what? — ask a few token questions about the odd

section and

just call it a day? They’re going to feel good about going back to their

constituents? What about the MLAs that represent Maple Ridge? What about

the MLAs that represent Abbotsford? How about in Mission? How about in

Surrey? How about in Delta? These are all communities that have mills of

one sort or the other. They’re all going to be dramatically impacted by

this legislation.

They’re not interested in getting up, scrutinizing it and debating

it? They don’t want to have tough questions asked? If that’s the

message, that’s the message. I just cannot believe that the government

is going to shut this place down. We’re all going to go home, back to

our communities to get into the Christmas or holiday spirit, take the

winter period between the two legislative sessions to spend time with

our loved ones and family. Many of us are going to be going back to

communities that are going to be staring down the barrel of a whole

bunch of lost jobs.

This government won’t even afford the opportunity to properly

scrutinize the legislation that is going to underpin those job losses.

There are 74 sections. You know, when you step back and you actually

consider the context of this legislation, the industry that it will

impact, you take a look at one of British Columbia’s proudest

industries, one of its proudest sectors, one of its longest-standing

sectors, one of the original industries in this province.

Heck, when visitors come to the buildings here, it’s always a

great honour for us MLAs to take our constituents on a tour of the

building. You take them into that grand rotunda, you look up at the

ceiling, and what do you see? You see four murals of the four original

industries in British Columbia — fishing, agriculture, mining and

forestry. This is a sector that provides $1.1 billion in public revenue

every single year.

It’s a sector that employs over 100,000 British Columbians,

directly or indirectly, including 5,300 Indigenous people. That segment

of the forest sector is growing as more and more First Nations, more and

more Indigenous people, engage in forestry. It’s a sector that’s

responsible for about $8 billion in wages every year. It’s a sector

where one in five of the jobs might be in British Columbia’s north and

central Interior, but one in four of the manufacturing jobs in forestry

are actually in the Lower Mainland, and 40 percent of all forestry jobs

are actually in Vancouver, in the Lower Mainland.

[2:20 p.m.]

We often focus on the Interior and the north or the Kootenays and

Vancouver Island when it comes to forestry, and that’s fair. You often

lose sight of the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, there are a whole

bunch of mills of different types situated, for the most part, along or

near the Fraser River, in communities all through the Lower

Mainland.

There are also a heck of a lot of forestry jobs that are right in

downtown Vancouver. These are all jobs that are hanging in the balance

with this industry right now.

There is a wide, wide variety of products that we export. Forestry

is our number one export product, to this day, very proudly so — whether

it’s mass timber and engineered wood; whether it’s softwood lumber;

whether it’s MDF; whether it’s biomass; whether it’s pulp like the

Domtar mill in Kamloops, which we’re very proud of and which has been a

mainstay in our community for generations. These are products that are

harvested, and they’re made, and there is value added to them in

communities all over our province.

So $7 billion in local goods and services purchased. Almost 10,000

businesses are directly supported by or exist for no other reason than

the forestry sector. Almost 10,000 businesses. You know what? An

increasing number of those businesses are engaged in technology, a

sector that I come from. No longer do we talk about technology as its

own separate sector. Technology is woven into every single sector, and

it’s particularly woven into the forest sector.

It’s a heck of a lot of jobs. The sector drives 15 percent of

B.C.’s economic activity. So we’re not talking about a rela­tively

small, emerging industry. We have a lot of those too. They’re all

valuable, and we want to grow them all. We’re talking about a mainstay

of British Columbia’s economy, a sector that employs 100,000 people, as

I said — that has jobs throughout this province.

Now with recognizing the footprint that this sector has today, we

understand that that footprint is likely going to change somewhat in the

years ahead, notwithstanding any of these changes that are being

proposed by this government. There is no quibble with the suggestion,

even from within the forest industry itself, that practices need to

evolve, that there needs to be some change in how we do what we do on

our land base. There is no question about that.

There is no question that we have to take a long, hard look at the

evolving role of Indigenous peoples in the management of our forestry

resource. There is no question that — and we’ve said — our stumpage

system is outdated. We’ve got to ask ourselves why it is that this

government can’t seem to strike that softwood lumber deal that John

Horgan said was going to be the his top order of business when he became

Premier.

We know, with the ravage of pine beetle and other insects, and so

forth, or the increasing prevalence of wildfires, that there is

tremendous impact of all of the above on our land base and our timber

volumes and the annual allowable cut as a result. So we’re saying that

change is needed. Change is inevitable. Change will need to be part of

how we evolve our practices on the land base.

[2:25 p.m.]

But we should be debating those changes, some of which the

government is proposing, which we’ve got a bit of a problem with.

Others, less so, but some of it is contained within this piece of

legislation, within Bill 28.

But we’re not going to be given that opportunity, because once

we’re done on Thursday of this week, at five o’clock, a little over 48

hours from now, it doesn’t matter where we are in this bill. It doesn’t

matter where we are in the FOI bill. It doesn’t matter where we are on a

number of other bills, in their normal legislative scrutiny. Those bills

— like this one, Bill 28 — are just going to become the law of the

province. Again, that is deeply, deeply regrettable considering the

impacts that some of what’s in this bill are going to have on the

sector.

I want to talk about the sector a little bit from the perspective

of the community I represent, the city of Kamloops. We have a proud

forestry history in our city. It’s one of the earliest industries in the

Kamloops area. I remember going down to the museum in Kamloops when I

was a little boy and actually looking at those black and white photos of

trees that had been cut and were being hauled by horseback.

I’ve got a lot of relatives that have been gainfully employed in

forestry over the years. We had a sawmill in Kamloops at one point. It’s

no longer there today, but as I mentioned earlier, we have a pulp mill,

a state-of-the-art pulp mill. It’s a pulp mill owned by Domtar, which is

a really, really good corporate citizen. But more than that, much more

important than that, it’s a company that employs a heck of a lot of

Kamloopsians.

I can’t tell you the number of parents that I’ve met over the

years whose kids play soccer with one of my daughters or play volleyball

with one of my daughters or just go to school with one of my daughters.

They work at Domtar. They’ve got a home in Kamloops. They’ve got a

vehicle or two in the driveway. They’re able to enrol their kids in

activities. They choose to raise their families in Kamloops, in large

part because they’ve got a great family-supporting job at

Domtar.

I’m just going to regale the House with a few facts about Domtar.

There are 317 mill employees today. It’s a big number. It’s not a

massive, massive number, but it’s a big number. Those are good wages.

Those are really good wages. So 317 mill employees; 1,500 direct and

indirect jobs associated with Domtar. The number is getting a bit

bigger. The impact of all those wages getting even bigger. And 400,000

tonnes of annual pulp production, and 460,000 megawatts per hour of

annual green power production.

This is one of the areas where Domtar has really stood out. It’s

one of the areas where they’ve actually been able to generate cost

efficiencies, which has enabled them to keep lines going and therefore

keep workers employed when times have been a bit tougher. They’ve

invested in generating a good chunk of their own power. They do it on

site. They actually generate net power, more than they need, which they

sell back into the grid. It’s an example of the investments that Domtar

has made in Kamloops over the years that have enabled the company to

continue to employ, as of today, 317 mill employees.

Having met with them recently, they’re very proud of the fact that

they continued operation during the pandemic. They didn’t cease

operations at all. They continued their operations through the pandemic,

and it wasn’t easy, for a whole bunch of reasons.

[2:30 p.m.]

I should point out, as well, that the workers and the union that

represents the workers, Unifor, are a terrific partner with Domtar. This

is a fantastic example of how it’s supposed to work, where you have the

union and you have the company that are in lockstep.

You know what their common denominator is? It’s the employees, the

workers, that work at that mill. There were no layoffs at the Domtar

pulp mill throughout this pandemic — not one. They advised the member

from Kamloops–North Thompson and I that they have performed as planned

or better through the pandemic.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The point that I’m trying to make here is…. You would think that

for a pulp mill, granted the wild fluctuation in pulp prices that is

just a reality of this subsector of the forest sector…. You would think

that a mill as modern and as efficient and as committed to their

employees and as committed to the community as Domtar…. You would think

that when asked, “How are you feeling about the future?” Domtar might

say: “Well, we’ve got some challenges coming at us, but you know, we

feel pretty good.” That’s not what they’re saying.

Now, I don’t want to put any words into their mouth, and I don’t

want to overstate anything here, but they have flagged for us a very

significant challenge with chip supply that exists today and that is

going to get far worse, in their estimation, if Bill 28 and Bill 23 —

and all these other cumulative impacts that this government seems intent

on pressing forward with — actually come to pass.

We’re sitting here thinking: surely to God it’s not possible that

Domtar isn’t going to be in our community in the months or years ahead?

I think the conventional answer or conventional wisdom on that is no. I

think that Domtar will be around well into the future. They have been

innovative. They have figured out how to face a number of challenges in

the past.

But why are we putting companies like Domtar, why are we putting

the workers at Domtar in that kind of potential risk? Why are we doing

that? And why are we doing it without appropriate and reasonable debate

on this bill?

It’s outrageous. That’s what workers from Domtar are telling me.

That’s what Unifor, which represents the workers at Domtar, is telling

me. That’s what Domtar itself is telling me.

These changes warrant appropriate debate. After weeks and weeks of

— I’m going to be really be charitable here — a pretty darned thin

legislative agenda…. I mean, how much time did we spend on a throne

speech that was delivered how many months ago? Yeah, April. It’s

November. We actually spent time in the front end of this session

debating the throne speech, which is so completely no longer timely with

where things are at.

But then we’re being asked to, here and now…. “Let’s just look

past these changes, and we’ll just hope for the best. We’ll just hope

for the best.”

Well, you know what? My constituents who work at the Adams Lake

sawmill on Adams Lake, that Interfor operation, my constituents who work

at Domtar…. They don’t have the luxury of just: “Let’s hope for the

best.” Let’s just hope that these changes actually don’t have an impact

such that, from a cumulative perspective, it’s wham-bam: “We’re done. We

can’t afford to operate in this province anymore. We can’t afford to….

Or we’ve got to go from three shifts to two shifts. Or we’ve got to

furlough a bunch of employees indefinitely.”

This is all being brought forward at probably the worst time it

could be, considering the impacts of the pandemic on everyone — the need

for communities to have stability, the need for workers to know that

they’re going to have jobs that they can look forward to, that are going

to keep paying their mortgage, that are going to enable them to keep

sending their kids to soccer and ballet.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think that they’re going to want to know that we actually

debated the legislation, that we actually went through it with a

fine-toothed comb like we’re supposed to, but no. I guess the government

is saying to me: “You’re going to have to go back to Kamloops, MLA, and

you’re going to have to tell the 317 workers at Domtar — the direct mill

employees, the 1,500 people who have indirect or direct jobs associated

with Domtar…. You’re going to have to say to them, ‘Sorry. We tried, but

there wasn’t enough time on the clock.’”

You know what? I am going to tell them that. But I’m going to also

tell them that this is all on the government. This is all on an NDP

government that is being disrespectful to these workers, that is being

disrespectful to their communities, that is being disrespectful to the

companies, that is being disrespectful to the customers of these

employees. This is not how we normally do business in British

Columbia.

With that in mind, I am going to move a motion, and the motion is

as follows:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 28) intituled

Forest Amendment Act, 2021 , be amended by deleting the word

“now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

This is a hoist motion, Mr. Speaker, as you’re well aware. This

bill must be delayed. It must be held back so that it can be brought

forward again for proper discussion, debate and analysis. We owe nothing

less to the workers in this industry across the province.

On the amendment.

T. Stone: Now I’m speaking to the proposed amendment that’s on the floor. It

doesn’t bring me any great satisfaction to be bringing this forward. Let

me be really clear about that. Hopefully, I’ve laid out some arguments

here or a perspective that’s informed by people back in Kamloops, people

in Chase, people in communities around my riding that are wondering what

the heck is going on with this government when it comes to

forestry.

How is it that this government could feel it is appropriate, let

alone reasonable, to bring forward this 85-page bill — it has 74

sections in it — that provides for some pretty substantial changes to

forest practices in the province? How is it that this government could

bring this forward and expect that in a matter of two more days, along

with a whole range of other bills that are in varying stages of the

legislative process, we should just accelerate our scrutiny? Let’s just

hit the gas pedal and bomb through this faster. Let’s just do it

faster.

This amendment is important, because it’s the right thing to do.

It would be the right thing for this government to take a pause on

legislation this significant that proposes changes to the tenure system

in this province. That’s going to have ramifications.

[2:40 p.m.]

Again, we’re all trying to quantify to what degree and on whom and

who the winners are and who the losers are. We don’t know. We haven’t

had an opportunity to scrutinize

section by

section by

section in the

level of detail that the workers, the 100,000 British Columbians who are

gainfully employed in this sector…. We haven’t had an opportunity to

scrutinize it and ask those pointed questions to the Minister of

Forests, the individual who has brought forward this

legislation.

It doesn’t matter if you talk to the opposition. Go and talk to

workers at any of the mills in the province. Or how about independent

contractors? How about those thousands and thousands of British

Columbians who are out there working for themselves, gainfully employed

because the forest sector exists and there are opportunities for them in

that sector? They’d like us to scrutinize this piece of legislation. So

would all the other contractors. So would all the suppliers. So would

mayors of communities where the forest sector is a big footprint, a big

economic driver, a big part of the quality of life in those

communities.

I’ll say this. You’ll hear from, certainly, a good cross-section

of opposition members on this as part of the hoist motion that is before

us at the moment, and hopefully, we’ll hear from members of the

government as well. The changes are significant. We’re of the view, in

our initial analysis…. It’s certainly informed by COFI and by the

independent contractors out there. The IWA and unions, like I mentioned

— Steelworkers and Unifor, and others — have expressed concern, and all

kinds of business organizations. It’s rare that you have labour and

business all on the same page, all expressing consistent

concerns.

My greatest fear is in a community where the mill in town is the

only game in town, the only major employer in town. If these changes go

through…. The risks that they bring with them — the impacts on our

operators, the flow-through impact on employment, operators that will

likely close. COFI estimates — what? — 12 to 14 mills are likely to

close. Two of the three pulp mills in the province are likely not to

make it.

In Kamloops, if Domtar went down, it would be a huge blow. It

would be felt far and wide in our community. But I’ll tell you, if the

one mill in a town of 5,000 goes down, the town is going to be

struggling big time. The very survival, the very future of that town is

in jeopardy at that point.

I could take time and go through a number of the sections that I

have concern with, like the special purpose areas and the approach to

compensation that’s provided for in this bill, which doesn’t really

marry up with what the government said it was going to do. I could talk

about the absolute lack of a socioeconomic impact analysis. The minister

said one day: “Yeah, it’s coming in a couple of weeks.” A couple of

weeks later it was like it never existed in the first place, and we

still can’t get an answer on that.

There’s been no clear statement of what supports will be available

for these 18,000 workers that are potentially going to lose their jobs

with these changes — those proposed in Bill 23 and through other policy

and protocol changes — and costs that have been layered onto the sector,

and so forth.

But I think for now, hopefully, I’ve made the point and set the

table a bit here for the reality that, one, this is a pretty substantive

bill. The changes provided for within this bill are

significant.

Two, those changes — the proposed sections and the amendments here

in Bill 28 — warrant a thorough and thoughtful and reasonable analysis.

That is what we are paid to do as legislators.

[2:45 p.m.]

Three, the government’s decision to invoke time allocation,

otherwise known as closure, and to essentially ram through this piece of

legislation and ram through other pieces of legislation because they

couldn’t get their act together at the front end of this legislative

session. They couldn’t manage their time properly.

They had us debating a throne speech from April in the first few

weeks. They had us discussing and debating miscellaneous statutes bills.

I’m not taking away the fact that there were some things in those bills

that are important public policy, but that was the focus of the first

several weeks of this legislative session. Then, bam, we’re past the

midway point, and they drop on us some dramatic changes, huge overhauls

to things like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

and this Forest Amendment Act, Bill 28.

That third point I’m making is in light of how substan­tive

this bill is, in light of the need for appropriate scrutiny, for

reasonable, thoughtful, thorough scrutiny of this bill. My third point

is it’s outrageous that the government is shoving this down the throats

of British Columbians, so many people that are potentially going to be

so dramatically impacted by this government’s approach to forestry, much

of which is mapped out in this bill.

It’s outrageous that we’re being asked to just look past the

changes in this bill and not accord the appropriate reasonable analysis

and debate to this bill, try to improve it, perhaps, going

forward.

We owe 100,000 people in this province a heck of a lot better than

what’s being provided for in this bill and what’s being provided for in

this government’s heavy-handed decision to impose closure and time

allocation on the debate of such critical legislation as Bill

I ask everyone in the House to support this important

amendment.

P. Milobar: It gives me no joy to rise to speak to the amendment, but I think

it’s important that I do.

The amendment to postpone Bill 28 six months hence would enable

people in the province, as we’ve heard, to actually look at and

scrutinize a bill that has major, major consequences to every forest

community in our province. People sometimes forget that Surrey is a

forest community. They forget that Maple Ridge is a forest community.

Certainly, Kamloops, where I’m from, is a forest community; Barriere,

which I represent; Blue River; Clearwater; 100 Mile House; Williams

Lake. The list goes on and on and on, not to mention all of the Island

communities as well. All will be impacted dramatically by Bill

I think it’s important for, perhaps, the new members of government

to understand why this time allocation is so egregious, because the

management of when bills get presented to this House is 100 percent the

responsibility of the government. The opposition has no control over

when those bills get presented.

In the spring-summer session when we were just wrapping up and

what are called exposure bills get presented to this House — they kind

of hang out there over the summer, so people can look at them and

scrutinize them — we didn’t see Bill 23, which is currently being

debated, on forestry. We didn’t see Bill 28 that we’re discussing here

today, a very complex, 80-page bill with 74 clauses in it that will have

dramatic impact to the forest sector throughout British Columbia,

potentially for generations.

We didn’t see those bills so that we could scrutinize them and get

proper feedback from industry, proper feedback from communities, proper

feedback from unions and people representing the hard-working women and

men in the forest sector. No, we got two child care bills.

[2:50 p.m.]

Now, child care is incredibly important in this province, but the

complexity of those two child care bills was not one that needed months

of summertime to scrutinize and look over — not like these two complex

forestry bills. And 28 is incredibly complex. It deals with tenure. It

deals with the very core of how trees and fibre are accessed for pulp

mills, for sawmills, for value-add manufacturers — for everybody that

has anything to do with a tree in the process.

But instead, we come back in October. We come back to almost a

week’s worth of debate on an April throne speech. We follow that by

almost a week’s worth of debate, primarily by government members —

because the opposition was trying to get down to the actual business of

digging into bills — almost exclusively speaking to miscellaneous

statutes amendments, imploring us in their speeches how important

miscellaneous statutes are.

And we agreed. The important part of a miscellaneous statutes bill

is actually in committee stage, not in second reading debate. It’s when

you actually get, as opposition, to scrutinize the miscellaneous

statutes that are being changed and get questions answered, much like on

Bill 28.

Bill 28, at a minimum, should be given the same respect as a

miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It should, at a minimum, have been

given the same amount of time in this chamber for second reading. It’s

not going to. We’re getting shut down at 5:15 today.

That’s why the amendment for six months hence is so important,

because it would delay things for six months. The government has a

majority. They’re going to pass what they’re going to pass. No one’s

disputing that. But it does make you wonder what they’re trying to hide

in the bill. It does make you wonder what they don’t want scrutinized in

the bill, what they don’t want a light shone on in the bill.

We’ve already heard how poor their track record is on Indigenous

consultation on bill after bill after bill, especially on regulation and

bills regarding forestry. It sure would be nice to have enough time to

properly scrutinize that and to reach out to Indigenous forestry

communities and find out what they think about this bill. There’s not

enough time for that.

But of course, this is a government that thinks they can overhaul

and defer old growth with only 30 days’ comment period for Indigenous

communities too. So it’s no real surprise that they’re not that worried

about us properly scrutinizing this bill — as we’re paid by the

taxpayers of British Columbia to do on behalf of forest communities, on

behalf of Indigenous communities — and understanding what the impacts to

those communities are actually going to be on Bill 28 and the tenure

changes.

Instead, it’s just a slap in the face of democracy by this

government. It’s rushed through — delay, kill time on other bills and

then, at the 11th hour, say: “Well, we’ve got to get through this.” We

have not been the obstructionists through any of these bills, to this

point. I would challenge anyone in government to go through and look at

the time that we, as an opposition, have properly and responsibly tried

allocating to bills.

But when you show up with two weeks to go…. Three bills get

introduced on the Monday. Two more bills get introduced on the

Wednesday. You have now six days left in the calendar. Now we’re down to

three days left in the legislative calendar. It’s a little hard, as

opposition, to keep managing that time responsibly, as we’ve been doing

to this point, because the government’s ministers can’t get their act

together and get legislation presented in time.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t a timeline of trying to get this

legislation developed between the summer session and October. October

marked one year since this government took office. They had a year to

get this legislation in front of us in a timely way, a year to get it in

front of this House.

[2:55 p.m.]

Instead, we saw it on week 5 of a six-week legislative calendar.

Then on week 6, when we’ve barely even gotten to it, they say: “Oh,

you’re done. We’re going to invoke closure on it. Oh, and we’re going to

invoke closure on FOI, because we don’t really like to talk about things

like transparency. We should probably invoke closure on the other

forestry bill.”

This is how asinine this is. We actually have a different forestry

bill being debated in a different chamber at the same time as this

forestry bill right now. This government is so inept at managing their

bills time that they actually have simultaneous forestry debates going

on, both of which would fundamentally change forestry in our

communities, because they can’t even manage their calendar enough to get

them on different days.

Sadly, they’ve invoked closure this afternoon on both of those

bills. I find it incredible that new members of the government actually

signed up for what they are witnessing. No discussion on FOI from the

government, of any substance. Certainly not. No discussion on anything

of substance — any legislation of substance put forward to this House —

certainly not on Bill 28, because now we have our time

restricted.

If there were ever a shining example of just how poorly managed

this legislative session has been going, on behalf of the government,

it’s the fact that they have simultaneous forestry bills being debated

in this building. I’m unaware of that ever really happening. In fact,

when we pushed back against that, because we ultimately, as opposition,

don’t control which debate is happening at any given time in any

chamber, the response back was: “Well, the minister has already

introduced Bill 28. She doesn’t really need to hear the

debate.”

That was government’s response when we challenged the concept of

having two Houses going at the same time on the same subject matter:

“The minister doesn’t need to hear the debate on Bill 28.” That is

reprehensible. That is a total abdication of your responsibilities as a

minister of the Crown. You introduce a piece of legislation that has 74

clauses — that’s 80 pages — Bill 28. It’s bad enough that you invoke

closure. You literally have informed opposition that you don’t need to

hear the debate. When does that ever get acknowledged that

publicly?

I guess, at least, the minister was honest about really not having

a care what forest communities have to say about Bill 28, not wanting to

listen to what forest communities have to say about Bill 28. All of this

government’s union supporters that are against it, all of the Indigenous

communities that are against it and all of the companies that are

against it — the minister doesn’t need to hear, according to the

Government House Leader. “Nothing to see here, folks. We can have

simultaneous debate happening.”

So on Bill 28, to have that type of attitude shown to community

after community and to not have the time to properly scrutinize this

bill, to understand what the impact to value-added mills in Surrey will

be, is not good enough. To not scrutinize this bill so that my mill in

Barriere, which is a specialty mill, can understand what this means to

them is not acceptable. To not have the time for Valemount and McBride —

mills all over — and Tolko in Kamloops to understand the impacts of this

bill and to find out that, literally, government does not care what is

said in this chamber when it comes to debate — no wonder they feel that

it’s their right to bring in time allocation.

No wonder they have such arrogance, one year in. There’s a saying

going around: “It took the B.C. Liberals 16 years to get as arrogant as

this NDP has gotten in less than a year.” It’s starting to be that they

have well exceeded that arrogance. It’s pretty sad that the one thing

that they actually overachieve on is arrogance. Very sad. Because

there’s lots of stuff that we’re still waiting on this chamber to deal

with that’s important.

[3:00 p.m.]

We’re waiting for a statutory committee to actually meet. We’ve

heard: “in a couple of weeks.” That was a month ago. We still haven’t

seen that committee start to meet yet. So a wide range of things that

this time allocation is problematic about.

I think it’s very symbolic to the overall theme we’re seeing from

this government about making up the rules as they go, making sure that

they’re squeezing every procedural quirk they can to ram through their

legislation, to not listen to people, to not listen to the elected

members of the opposition, to not listen to the communities that we

represent, the voices we’re trying to bring forward.

The sheer level of arrogance and disdain that this government

seems to have for proper democratic debate and scrutiny of their

legislation is shocking. It’s absolutely shocking.

That is why the amendment to delay this bill for six months…. It

does not mean the bill has to die, although it might, I guess, if

there’s a proroguing of the parliament, but the government could

reintroduce it in its full form. It would just mean that communities

would have time to properly scrutinize.

But this government seems afraid of that scrutiny. They don’t want

scrutiny. They talk a good game about collaborating, about consulting.

They come up with great, glossy marketing brochures. They should.

They’ve got — what? — 500 people now working in GCPE, on the

communications side. Can’t figure out how to get one of them to click on

an emergency alert to work, but they’ve got 500 people that are trying

to communicate to the public, but only the message they want the public

to hear.

They don’t want the public to actually have any questions asked on

their behalf in this chamber. They don’t want to actually have to defend

what they are doing. They don’t want to defend the gutting of resource

town after resource town after resource town, and remote Indigenous

communities that rely on forestry as well. They don’t want that

scrutiny, and that’s why we see time allocation brought in today. That’s

why we need the amendment to pass. That’s why we need the extra six

months to actually get that important work done on behalf of everyone

that the government MLAs purport to represent and support. But they sure

don’t.

Boy, they sure turned their back on their union brothers and

sisters when the donation cheques stopped flowing in. That was pretty

fast. Last I checked, Unifor and Steelworkers weren’t very happy with

what’s going on with all of these forestry changes — total ignoring from

the government. It wasn’t that way when big union cheques were being

cut. In fact, I believe it was the Premier that was going to go sell

softwood lumber, and the only thing he came back with was a big

Steelworkers’ cheque out of the States, a few hundred thousand dollars.

No softwood deal but one last big donation before the donation rules got

changed.

The donation rules needed to be changed. It’s interesting how, as

soon as they changed, this government stopped listening to the people

writing the cheques. Just like that. It will sure make their inevitable

future leadership race interesting. Everyone says: “We’re a big-tent

party.” Well, last I checked, there are 33 big groups of people within

the government ranks.

It will be interesting to see how their labour arm reacts to being

ignored non-stop, because that’s what’s happening with Bill 28 —

flat-out ignoring.

So it’s a pretty sad day for democracy and proper process in this

province when we have a government that’s more interested and more

concerned about debating a throne speech and miscellaneous stats than

answering and providing the time for opposition and communities to

properly look at, scrutinize and question legislation.

Bill 28 has serious, serious potential ramifications that need to

be understood. Forestry is an incredibly complex file, and, yes,

forestry needs to update its practices. The industry acknowledges that.

We in the opposition certainly acknowledge that. Workers acknowledge

that.

[3:05 p.m.]

These workers live in these communities. They live in the forests.

They get that it has to modernize. No one is saying that shouldn’t

happen. But they should understand what the government is planning to do

because, frankly, based on the track record of so many files that have

been so badly managed by this government over the last 4½ years, I can

see why communities are scared with this bill.

To take something as complex as forestry and think you can drop a

bill, give it a day and a bit of debate, give it a day and a bit of

questions, which is ridiculous…. Thursday we end early, because we’ve

got to make sure that the Lieutenant-Governor gets here for royal

assent. That’s right and proper, but it means things always wrap up a

little bit earlier on the last day. So that’s what we’re left with — a

government that doesn’t want to listen, doesn’t want to be held up to

scrutiny, doesn’t actually care, literally, what is being said in this

debate and is content with running simultaneous forestry debates at the

same time in this building.

I see the member…. We have former MPs on the other side that had

pretty strong things to say before, when they were in opposition in

Ottawa, about things like time allocation and closure. Mind you, they

had pretty strong things to say about FOI that they suddenly went pretty

silent on in this chamber too. How disappointed their communities must

be that the opinions and thoughts they thought they were electing, based

on historical references and touchpoints, no longer seem to be voiced in

this chamber. I guess it’s do as you’re told in the government ranks,

say as you’re told in the government ranks. How disappointing,

indeed.

It’s shocking. It is an absolutely shocking display, as I say, of

arrogance by this government to ram through legislation of this

magnitude, and the other pieces of legislation that are now subject to

closure, simply because of government incompetence to bring forward

legislation in a timely fashion.

Had this bill been presented when we first got back in October, we

probably could have dealt with it. We would have allocated time, moved

time around responsibly, as an opposition does, and made sure we

provided enough time to get proper debate and proper views out there and

proper scrutiny. But when it gets dropped with only a few days left in

the session, that opportunity is gone. This should have been, at a

minimum, presented the first day we were back in October.

Best case, it should have actually been presented as an exposure

bill at the end of the spring and summer session so we could have had

the summer to actually look at it and deal with it properly: consult

with professional foresters about the impact that this will mean;

consult with communities; consult with those unions — you know, those

ones that used to sign you big cheques that you listened to then;

consult with the Indigenous communities that the government side keeps

wrapping themselves in around UNDRIP, but whenever there’s something

that requires any bit of actual meaningful consultation, they shrug

their shoulders and ignore that piece of it.

No, that’s all out the window with Bill 28. It’s all out the

window, and it is such poor time management on the government’s side —

simultaneous forestry debate. I am very hard-pressed to hear or remember

when that would have ever happened in this building.

With that, I will cede the floor. I’m sure there are many others

on our side that have very strong opinions on this. I’m sure,

undoubtedly, we’re up against the clock. We have basically two hours

left of debate. I’m sure, magically, the government’s members will

suddenly find their voice again and try to run the clock out on us

because they don’t like to hear the cold, hard truths about what’s

actually going on within their own government. I guess we’ll see what

happens with that or not. Once again, we can’t control that either. But

if any of their actions up to this point are any indication, I would

expect an afternoon of arrogance on full display by this government yet

again.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Halford: I speak in support of the motion put forward by my

colleague.

It is a fairly disappointing day when we are talking about a piece

of legislation that is 80 pages long, of vital importance, that will

affect thousands of British Columbians’ livelihoods, and we’re bringing

forward time allocation, which is closure.

It’s interesting because, in question period today, the Minister

of Forests did say…. It was a plea. We had workers in the gallery who

are obviously very anxious, concerned about their industry, about their

jobs, about how they’re going to put food on the table, how they’re

going to buy Christmas gifts for their family. She made a plea to stop

the misinformation.

Well, if you want to make that plea, it has more substance if you

actually allow this bill to be debated in this House. If you want to

have some credibility when you stand up in this House and answer a

question that is related to the thousands of jobs that this sector

employs, let your bill stand up to that. Defend it. Defend

it.

The level of arrogance that we are seeing from this government is,

I think, somewhat surprising. Maybe some would say it’s not. But we are

a year into this government’s mandate, and when you look at some of the

challenges they’ve faced, they don’t want to face them head on. They

don’t want to consult. They don’t want to listen. They don’t want to

defend. Whether it’s the forestry industry today or the autism sector

yesterday and tomorrow, whether it’s private child care operators, this

government doesn’t want to listen. They don’t want to defend. They don’t

want the scrutiny.

If you look at what we’ve accomplished in this fall session —

three things. We’ve had a filibuster misc stats bill. We have debated a

throne speech in October that was put forward in April. In the last two

weeks, this government has introduced a wave of bills. Third, they’ve

now cut off debate on those bills.

It seems to me that there are two things that you can come to a

conclusion on. I think neither is good for this government. It’s either

calculated or it’s incompetent. Neither serves British Columbians. It’s

either calculated that you don’t want to have the conversation — when we

have forestry workers sitting in the gallery, when you want to defend

this bill in committee — or it’s incompetent that you don’t know how to

run this building. That’s the only logical answer that I can come to,

incompetent or calculated.

We are talking about a sector that generated $1.1 billion in B.C.

public revenue. Over 100,000 jobs are generated, over $8 billion in

wages and salaries paid and $4 billion in taxes to all three levels of

government. As my colleagues have mentioned before, 40 percent of these

jobs are in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. In my community of Surrey,

forestry is vitally important.

I see it as a challenge every day when we come to this House and

the importance that we put on it and the expectation that our

constituents give to us each and every day that we will come and defend

their rights and put forward their ideas and, honestly, try and protect

them.

I’ve seen my colleagues do that. I’ve seen the two colleagues from

Kamloops do that. I’ve seen my colleague from the Cariboo do that. I’ve

seen my other colleague from the Cariboo do that. I’ve seen my colleague

from West Vancouver do that. I’ve seen my colleague from Kelowna-Mission

do that. I haven’t seen anybody in government do that. I

haven’t.

[3:15 p.m.]

It’s a pretty sad, damning statement when you look at where we are

today. When you look at some of the issues that are facing us, whether

it’s freedom of information — which was a very sad statement on this

fall session, I think we all agree and are ashamed by — or it’s the

changes we’re making to the autism sector, which are unforgivable. Now

it’s the fact that you’ve put forward, in the last two weeks, an 80-page

bill, and you can’t defend it.

When you look at the people that are hit by this…. I’ll go through

it. I know we’ve gone through it, but I’ll do it again, because they’re

owed that. Andersen Pacific Forest Products in Maple Ridge. Cedarland

Forest Products, Maple Ridge. Fraserview Cedar Products, Surrey. Leslie

Forest Products, Delta. Mountain View Specialty Products, Abbotsford.

PowerWood Corp., Agassiz. Surrey Cedar Ltd., Langley. CarlWood Lumber,

Maple Ridge. Central Cedar, Surrey. Jasco Forest Products, Abbotsford.

Lyle Forest Products, Chilliwack. North American Forest Products,

Abbotsford. Terminal Forest Products, Richmond. Pacific Western Wood

Works, Delta. Teal-Jones, Surrey. Goldwood, Richmond.

Now, I understand…. I’m a new MLA, and I’m joined by new MLAs in

this House. Maybe it’s an embarrassment that they don’t want to speak to

this. Maybe it’s hard to go back and look at their constituents when

they come into your office or send you the emails and say: “What have

you done to defend my job?” Well, we debated the throne speech for two

weeks in October, which was put forward in April. We didn’t stand up for

families of children with autism. We didn’t stand up for the forestry

workers and defend the legislation that we jammed through with only two

weeks left in this session.

It’s a pretty sad statement when we look…. We know that the

forestry sector is the backbone of our economy in British Columbia, and

it has been for generations. Some $11.5 billion of B.C.’s total exports

came from forest products in 2020, and 87 percent of B.C. lumber was

destined for international markets in 2020. It’s the number one export

sector in B.C.

So why aren’t we talking about this? We’re going to bring time

allocation on an 80-page bill. That, to me, is…. I’m sure it’s not

unprecedented, but it’s deeply, deeply troubling.

I see that the Minister of State for Natural Resource Operations

is in the House. Maybe he will speak to this.

Will you speak to the bill, through the Chair? I didn’t

understand.

Interjections.

T. Halford: Sorry, Chair, did the member speak?

Deputy Speaker: It’s your time, Member.

T. Halford: It must have been an impactful speech. I don’t recall it.

Nonetheless, I see that he has poked his head up. I’ll maybe be regaled

with his antics throughout my remarks, but that’s okay.

Interjection.

T. Halford: Good job. Good job.

Let’s read a few quotes here while we’ve got the time.

B.C. Council of Forest Industries: “It’s particularly troubling

that these deferrals come on the heels of a pandemic that has challenged

us all and where the forest industry has been a bright light. We kept

people working safely and continued to deliver more than $4 billion in

revenues to government over the last year, which has helped put our

province in a financial position better than most. Now the key industry

that continues to contribute to our resilience is being

devastated.”

[3:20 p.m.]

Now that, to me, is a quote on a piece of legislation that

deserves proper debate, I think.

Another one. This is the B.C. Council of Forest Industries:

“Small, medium, large, family-owned and Indigenous-owned forestry

companies, contractors, suppliers and workers are extremely concerned

that the province is moving in this direction.” That’s not a positive

endorsement.

We’ll go on to the next one, Bob Brash, executive director of the

Truck Loggers Association: “Make no mistake. Based on the limited

information provided by government, the deferral of 2.6 million hectares

of deemed-at-risk forest will, in fact, result in immediate and

long-term impacts on B.C.’s forestry sector.”

Now, people may have different opinions on these quotes, but

shouldn’t we be debating that? On an 80-page bill, shouldn’t we be

having that fulsome debate?

Don Kayne, CEO of Canfor: “If fully implemented, it would have

significant impacts on our hard-working employees and their families,

along with our Indigenous partners, contractors, communities and the

entire in­dustry.”

President and CEO of the B.C. Business Council, Greg

D’Avignon:

“Today’s announcement is deeply concerning for the future health of

the B.C. economy and will have direct and unintended consequences for

communities across B.C., from Campbell River to Surrey, businesses big

and small and thousands of forestry-related workers across the province.

Further, this will have a nega­tive impact on provincial revenues,

which pay for the essential services that all British Columbians rely

upon and of which the forest sector contributes an outsized share,

particularly in the context of the ongoing pandemic.”

I think we get the hint. People are concerned. I think we should

acknowledge the fact that, whether they’re our ridings, government

ridings or Third Party ridings, we have a due diligence to bring

questions to this Legislature to challenge the minister — even, maybe,

the minister of state — on these issues. If that’s inconvenient, I’m not

going to apologize for that.

Like I said at the beginning of my remarks, it’s either calculated

or it’s incompetence. Neither is good for this government. More

importantly, neither is good for British Columbians. Whether they

support this legislation or are against this legislation, it deserves to

be debated. It deserves to be heard. Anything less is a sad

statement.

Now, the fact that this was dropped two weeks — I think it was

less than two weeks — ago and that we’re now at the point where we’re

invoking closure is, I think, a pretty sad commentary on how this

government has chosen to treat the workers of British Columbia. They

need and they deserve better than that. Their families deserve better

than that.

I support my colleagues on their motion. I’ll be interested to see

if anybody from government gets up and speaks, but I’m not going to hold

my breath.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to this amendment related to Bill 28. I’ve been

listening with interest to the comments by the members of the official

opposition on this, and they raise a lot of good points. But I think

what’s important here is pulling it up to the more bird’s-eye view of

what we should be aspiring to do in here. What are we meant to be

doing?

When you think about process, all these…. I had Emma-Jane Burian

and Grace Sinats here this morning with me. They came in and watched a

little bit of committee stage on Bill 23 in the Douglas Fir Room. As we

were entering and as we exited, I appropriately bowed to the Chair. They

asked: “Why do you do that?”

[3:25 p.m.]

Well, good question. Why do we do that? I said to them: “For me,

that is a physical reminder that when I come into the chamber, one, I’m

showing respect to the Chair, to the Speaker. Two, I am in here not as

myself, an individual — I am in here as the member for Cowichan Valley.

I am in here as a representative.” It’s a way to make a physical

reminder of that, every time we come and we go. We are leaving something

outside of the chamber when we come in. Then when we go back out, we can

reassume that individual. But in here we are representatives.

I take that incredibly seriously. It really matters to me. It’s

not like: “Oh, I always wanted to be a member of the Legislature.” This

was not the life plan. But one of the life moments that informed so much

of how I see this role and the work that we should be doing in here was

in 1980. I’ve spoken about it before, but it was going to a place that

was devoid of democracy — going with my father, who had been born there,

to East Germany, during the Cold War, behind the Iron Curtain, behind

the wall in Berlin — and experiencing, as a ten-year-old child — not

democracy.

Having our passports taken away from us. Being followed and

monitored everywhere we went. Knowing that — I spoke with my father many

times about this after our visit, and once I was grown up — they were

waiting for a misstep, for us to do something wrong, because we didn’t

have protected rights in that realm, in that world.

Having been born in 1939 in Germany — then coming here, becoming a

citizen, finishing high school, getting his university degree at UVic

and his master’s and PhD at the University of Alberta, becoming a

professor and raising a family — at every step of my childhood, he

instilled in me that we are so fortunate to live here in Canada. We have

democracy. We have freedom of the press. We have rights. We have the

Charter. All of these things were the fabric of my childhood.

I remember, at six years old, asking a friend of the family —

politics was a conversation in our household a lot — saying: “What’s a

caucus?” I’d heard them talking about caucus. “What’s a caucus?” She

said: “Oh, that’s the group of people in one political party in the

Legislature — in parliament.” I remember, really vividly, saying: “It

sounds noisy.” She was like: “Hmm. Yeah, it probably is.” But it really

mattered.

Then growing up, I had this spectacular public school education in

the fabric of this country, this sense of who we are, and learning, all

along the way, about how democracy works. In grade 11, I had that great

experience of spending a week in Ottawa — young parliamentarians — along

with a few of my other colleagues, it seems. I may have fallen asleep on

my way to go meet my Member of Parliament and was much dismayed to wake

up in the bus later to discover that I’d missed my meeting with the Hon.

Joe Clark, Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

[3:30 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I know. I was very disappointed that my friends didn’t wake me up.

They said: “You were so asleep.”

Anyway, I was a part of Model UN in grade 12, spent ten days in

Rocky Mountain House learning about how the UN works, ended up studying,

as part of my undergraduate degree, the evolution of parliamentary

democracy, Westminster parliamentary system, as a medieval

historian.

This isn’t like: “Oh, I really care about the ….” This is my life.

This has been very, very central and very core. Being here is a

responsibility and a privilege and a gift that I take incredibly

seriously. So on a day like this, when we get a motion that ends debate

on several significant pieces of legislation, it’s not just a

disappointment that I feel. It’s actually a deep sadness, because the

processes in here are a reflection of where we should be doing our very

best work. The processes in here should convey to the public that the

legislators are doing their job, their service that they owe you, that

you elected them to do.

Let’s think about the process. We get a bill introduced. First

reading. It can’t be debated on that first day. It has to at least sit

on the papers for one day so there’s time for everybody to look at it,

digest it, read it, try to get a sense of it. It’s easier with a smaller

bill. An 80-page bill is a little harder. Second day, it can be brought

for second reading, and that’s when you hear the responses to it from

all sides of the House, the kinds of positions that different members

will take. Then we get to, generally, not always, because there can be

these kinds of amendments at second reading, but we get to the committee

stage.

The committee stage for some people…. I’ve heard students, even

Grace and Emma-Jane, earlier say they were in here recently. I think

Grace was in here recently with her class, and she said: “But they were

on committee stage of a bill, so it was pretty boring.” It can look

pretty slow and uninteresting externally. But in some ways — I would

say, in all ways — it’s the most important stage, because it’s where the

members get to ask the government minister about this legislation, get

to understand it, understand what the intention is, understand what they

expect will result from these changes or these pieces of

legislation.

It provides the public with the capacity to look in

Hansard and to see those answers, to get an in-depth

understanding of this legislation. As was pointed out earlier today,

it’s a place where a judge might go to try to understand implications of

legislation if that judge is faced with making a decision.

It has significant long-term implications — the committee stage

debate. It’s also an expression of the very highest work in here, which

is, as legislators, Members of the Legislative Assembly, we are looking

at in depth the legislation being brought forward. Not only today are we

seeing the end of that — the limits on that ability to happen — but I

would say that, over the course of this session, that committee stage

debate has been less than stellar.

I will point to, just yesterday, my colleague and I asking very

straightforward questions and getting the same answer, like a

communication answer, a message block answer over and over and over

again. That doesn’t help us understand the legislation

better.

[3:35 p.m.]

That doesn’t help us understand the implications or the

intentions. It starts to feel like a larger erosion of what this

institution is meant to be doing — an erosion of the respect for this

institution and for the work that we do in here.

I’m looking at the people sitting in here, and I don’t think that

they feel disrespect personally for the Legislative Assembly and the

work we do in here. But collectively, the decisions being made by this

government are showing a disrespect. I think that many of the people on

the government side of the House right now would stand up and say

exactly that, if they were on this side of the House.

Maybe they would say: “Well, when this party was on that side of

the House, they did this.” I’m so tired of that argument. I’d really

like us to make a commitment in here to not have as a response to

criticism the answer: “Well, they were worse,” or “they did it too.”

Because we are, at every moment in our work in here, shaping the future.

Every time we let that be shaped by the past in that kind of way —

“We’re going to do it even though we know it’s not that great, because

it was done before” — that’s not the kind of tradition we should be

upholding in here. There are lots of traditions we should be, but not

that one.

Committee stage should be seen by a government that is proud of

its legislation as the opportunity to stand up and explain to everybody

why they’re so proud of their legislation. What are the intentions of

that legislation? What brought them to this place? What is the vision

for the future that this legislation is fulfilling? What service does

this legislation do for the people of British Columbia? But that’s not

what we’ve had here.

One of the bills that is time-allocated now is the freedom of

information — the changes of the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act. There could have been an entirely different journey for

that bill, a journey that was started already in the committee that had

been appointed and had a mandate. That bill, that legislation that

exists and the vision for the future of that legislation could have made

way through that committee. It exists already.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

That committee could have brought consensus-driven recommendations

to the government and this House in the form of a report from the

committee. The government then could have used the consensus created in

that committee, a consensus based on a shared vision across party lines

of what the future should look like when it comes to information and

privacy in British Columbia. Then, the government could have brought

forward legislation based on those consensus recommendations and spent

the time on committee detailing exactly how we got here, what the

intention is and the process that was so rich and worked across party

lines in a committee, as it should.

I would expect, rather than the tumultuous and conflict-driven

approach that has really characterized this bill, that that would have

been very different.

[3:40 p.m.]

We could have had, instead, an entire Legislature saying that

we’re really so incredibly proud of this work that we did together.

We’re so proud that we took that input with a sense of: “What’s the

future for this province that we all share, and how are we going to get

there together? Now we have this legislation that is the manifestation

of all that work, of all of us, and we’re holding it up. We’re all

standing up together to celebrate nemine

contradicente. ”

Instead, we’re not even going to get the opportunity to get

through the committee stage on this bill.

Instead of feeling proud of this legislation, I expect there will

be a different feeling at the end of this — a feeling of defensiveness,

a feeling of: “I don’t want to talk about if this was the right thing.

We had to do it because the opposition parties were asking too many

questions.” Instead of a feeling of, “We actually did what the minister

says over and over again — made government more transparent and

accountable,” the feeling is going to be: “Can we just move on and not

talk about this anymore? It’s not comfortable.”

Process matters. What we’re being deprived of in Bill 28, Bill 22,

Bill 23 — there’s another one in there too; there are a lot of them — is

robust process. Robust process really is the best work that we could be

doing in here, especially when it leads to consensus building,

especially when it leads to actually improving legislation, when it

recognizes that there is a collective knowledge and wisdom and

understanding in here. At our very best, that’s being tapped into as a

matter of course, as opposed to pushed aside and not

recognized.

When we have elections with a 50 percent voter turnout and just

under 50 percent of those voters voting for the party that has over 60

percent of the seats in here — two-thirds of the seats — we have another

distortion of democracy. While there are an overwhelming number of

seats, and the governing party absolutely doesn’t need to build

consensus, doesn’t need to be collaborative, doesn’t need to work across

party lines to achieve whatever outcomes it wants to achieve…. I would

suggest that four years of that are going to impoverish us in terms of

our democracy and our processes in this Legislature.

There is always the opportunity to say: “You know what? We’ve been

doing it that way now for a year, but we can change course.” I’ll point

to the number of times that the official opposition and our caucus have

called for a more collaborative approach. A more collaborative approach

to the drug poisoning crisis that we’re seeing in this province, which

is robbing people in all of our communities of their lives. A more

collaborative approach to these emergencies that we’re in that are going

to continually compound and intersect with each other. A more

collaborative approach, as we had in 2020, to responding to

COVID.

[3:45 p.m.]

We serve better when we serve collaboratively. When we get caught

up in this being a contest of wills between two parties that have been

caught up in a contest of wills forever — different names — in this

province, we lose sight of what is possible in here.

All of us, at some point, have experienced that when we do our

best work, whether it’s as legislators or in other realms of our lives….

I think almost all of us would agree that our best work is done in

collaboration or as part of a team or when we recognize that we are in

service to something much greater than ourselves, certainly much greater

than a political party. When we’re in service in here to the future,

wholly in service to the future, I think, is when we do our best

work.

I support this motion. I think what we could see is a recognition

from government at this point to say: “Yeah. Let’s wait. We can do our

best work. We are so excited to defend this legislation. We think it is

fantastic legislation, and we don’t want to squander the opportunity to

properly defend it, because we believe in it so much. We can wait. Maybe

we’ll even bring the House back a little sooner than expected so that

we’ll give it all the time it needs for us to convey not just to the

members of the opposition and our own caucus but to the public, to the

press, how proud we are of this legislation.” What’s going to happen now

is that that opportunity is not going to happen.

It’s not a show of weakness to listen and to change course. It’s

not a show of weakness. It’s a show of strength. It’s an understanding,

again, that we are in service to something bigger, not just our own

short-term political agendas. When consequential legislation like the

legislation that’s in front of us right now doesn’t have enough time to

be properly debated, it’s always possible — it’s certainly totally

possible, with this number of seats on the government side — to change

course.

I’m not going to give up on this wholehearted, lifelong faith I

have in democracy. I don’t want anyone else to, either. I want to see it

from my colleagues, because I know it’s there. They all ran for office.

They all want to be in service. I want to see from them that same

commitment.

We’re not playing a game in here. This isn’t a game. There are

real-world, real consequences, real implications that are long term and

significant to all of the legislation that we pass in this place, and we

should take that incredibly seriously.

R. Merrifield: I rise to support the hoist motion that has been put before us. I

don’t even know if support is the right word. I want to demand that it

be moved and supported.

[3:50 p.m.]

I want to plead on behalf of every family that is going into

Christmas with a tremendous amount of insecurity, uncertainty, not

knowing if they have a job; for every business that doesn’t know if they

can make it to next payroll or if they’re going to have a future in two

weeks; for every community that is absolutely going to be decimated by

this bill; and by the Indigenous leaders. I want to plead on their

behalf and stand up for them today to say: “We have not had enough time

on this bill.”

The NDP government has just voted to impose this time allocation.

This bill isn’t even going to make it to committee stage.

I became a member of this Legislative Assembly because I believe

in democracy, wholeheartedly — probably somewhat idealistically. In a

democratic process, we actually have time to look at a bill. We have

time to debate a bill. We have time to take it through a committee

stage. We scrutinize it. This bill threatens 18,000 jobs. It threatens 4

percent of the B.C. GDP, and we’re not even going to give it the decency

of taking it through a committee stage?

I’m going to agree with the Leader of the Third Party on what

committee stage actually means. What does it do? Yes, it gives the

public some clarity. It gives the public some understanding, if it’s

done correctly. It also engages the stakeholders and allows them to

bring their questions, through us, to this House. It also informs the

judicial system as to what the intention was of these bills. An 80-page

bill of highly technical jargon that is going to have serious

implications, no matter who you actually believe, for the forestry

industry isn’t even going to be given that process? This is shameful.

I’m not proud of us today.

I’ll note that this type of time allocation is not usual. It takes

a tremendous amount of arrogance to not want scrutiny. It’s old-world

politics, old-world politics that our province is desperately wanting us

to get rid of. They’re craving something different. They’re craving us

to actually debate things. They’re craving for us to work together on

issues. They’re craving the best ideas to come forward. They’re craving

diversity of thought.

If I was going to see my family go without Christmas, I’d at least

want government to give me the decency of knowing why. Instead, what we

see, over the last two weeks, is a lack of transparency, a lack of

accountability, trying to get away from transparency, get away from

accountability and get away from debate and scrutiny. Truth never fears

scrutiny. Strength never fears someone else’s ideas. This government

fears both.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’ll note that time allocation has been criticized by some of the

NDP caucus members. The member for Stikine, the minister of state,

actually stated in 2018, when he was an NDP Member of Parliament, that

it is a process used to “ram it” — government legislation, that is —

“through parliament” and that government would be wise to “just don’t

use your total power to shut off people’s conversations, because that is

a way to only encourage more suspicion.”

The member for Stikine isn’t standing up today to support this

amendment yet, this motion. But maybe he will. Or now that he’s sitting

on that side, maybe he agrees that it’s okay to ram legislation through

parliament, through this House. I would argue it is never right to do

so. It is never right to do so.

Our Indigenous peoples want economic and environmental

sustainability. They want reconciliation. They don’t want 30 days on an

80-page bill, but I guess they had 30 days or 20 days longer than we had

with it. Businesses and industry? Well, they need certainty. It’s

government’s job to provide both of these. Without this, we’re not going

to see investment in B.C. We’re not going to see a future for B.C. The

five top exports of B.C. are all in the energy sector, and four of them

— four of them — are in forestry. Taking 20 percent of this industry

away is catastrophic for B.C.

Great planning comes when disparate voices are brought together

through consultation, through debate, through committee stage, and all

are heard. The reason that we’re hearing so much opposition from outside

of these four walls is because it didn’t go through the proper process

inside of these walls, never mind the process outside of these walls. If

this had been done effectively, if this had been done appropriately, if

the consultation outside of the walls had been done appropriately, you

would see the environmentalists walking hand in hand with the

Indigenous, walking hand in hand with industry, walking hand in hand

with our forestry sector.

You would have seen agreement. We have no agreement on this except

for the seats on that side of the House. That’s not called government.

That’s called dictatorship. That’s not called democracy. Democracy ends

when you stop having the conversation. But right now I don’t see anyone

happy with this bill, except for that side of the House.

The environmentalists say they haven’t gone far enough. There has

been virtually no economic analysis done, and if it has been done, we

have not seen it. Industry certainly isn’t in agreement. The Indigenous

aren’t in agreement. We’re not in agreement right now.

In my previous life, I built a lot of homes — a lot of homes — and

we used lumber to do it. I used to walk through after framing stage.

That was my favourite stage, because you could see the openness of the

walls still. You could feel how the skeleton of the home was coming

together.

[4:00 p.m.]

I could close my eyes and almost because of the smell of the

lumber know how the room was going to feel. We used it because it was

renewable. Has it always been done correctly? No, it hasn’t. Do we have

to change? Absolutely, we do.

But change management 101 is not shoving change and — using the

words of the minister of state — ramming it down someone’s throat. It’s

actually engaging in the process. It’s collaborating. Wood is still the

best building material. It’s still environmentally friendly. Our

forestry industry deserves protection, not at any expense, but it also

deserves communication and conversation and collaboration.

In my riding, the forestry sector is important. In our Okanagan,

we have two head offices of two very significant contributors to the

forestry industry, Gorman Bros. and Tolko. My nephew made his way all

the way through his professional program by working summers at Tolko.

Hard work, absolutely. Great-paying job, absolutely. Debt-free when he

graduated.

Communities throughout this province rely on our forestry sector.

Families rely on our forestry sector. But instead of actually having

that conversation, instead of introducing this bill when it should have

been introduced towards the beginning of our six weeks together, we

actually watched as the NDP filibustered their miscellaneous statutes

bill. I think that’s almost the first time in recorded history. But when

that didn’t work, well, then it was continued debate on the throne

speech of last April.

Meanwhile: threatening 18,000 jobs. To put that into perspective,

that’s not 18,000 people. That’s 18,000 families, so let’s take it to….

Each family is probably four people. So 54,000 British Columbians being

threatened by this bill. This bill is introduced very last and has just

been cut short on committee stage? Shame on us today. Shame on

them.

Instead we’re standing up. We’re standing up against this act with

this hoist motion. Look, we’re not asking for no change; we’re actually

asking for change. But no government should have a blank cheque on how

that change is made. So at least in this standing up…. At least in this,

the record is clear.

We are not the ones with those 18,000 jobs lost. We are not the

ones threatening the families at Christmas. We are not the ones who are

choosing to not have a conversation about this bill. We are the ones

that are standing up for families. We are the ones standing up for

Christmas. We are the ones standing up for the holidays. We are the ones

standing up for the forestry sector. We are the ones standing up for all

of the communities that are dependent on this.

[4:05 p.m.]

Instead, these guys just want to heckle. They think it’s funny.

Wow. They actually think it’s funny.

We are dealing in such a fragile time. Our systems, our

infrastructure…. We don’t even know if we can mail something right now

or when it would arrive. We don’t know if we can drive home from this

place today or how long it would take us. The fragility of our systems

is threatened. There are natural disasters — due to climate change, due

to the changing times — that are occurring.

Then there are man-made disasters. This is certainly an NDP

government–made disaster. The stress of COVID and the stress of floods

and the stress of fires and the stress of the economic uncertainty is

now the stress of job uncertainty for 18,000 more British

Columbians.

What do we need to do to be sustainable? Well, we need to get

serious about our cultural sustainability. I love that this House stood

up and unanimously supported UNDRIP. It’s so disheartening to now see

the Indigenous community saying: “We don’t have enough time to actually

give the feedback necessary on this bill.”

Social sustainability — well, that’s how we support those in need.

That’s how we support the softer side of our society. Well, there is no

social sustainability in this bill.

The environmental sustainability of this bill? Well, we don’t

actually know what it is, because it’s nothing more than a deferment.

We’re not sure what it’s going to mean, and there is no scrutiny with a

committee stage that would actually identify what that environmental

sustainability is going to mean.

The last pillar of sustainability is actually economic. This

government, when they stand to actually vote for this bill, will

threaten 4 percent of British Columbia’s GDP, at minimum — 18,000 jobs,

54,000 people, how many communities — and then all of the spillover

effect of having those communities no longer require services, no longer

need to exist.

So heckle all you want. Laugh all you want. The reality is that

this is an incredibly serious topic, in which we are threatening the

very backbone of our economic sustainability. The top five exports, four

related to forestry…. What do we replace it with?

I haven’t even started talking about — I don’t know — cutting Bill

22 short, cutting Bill 23 short, cutting Bill 29 short. This government

doesn’t seem to want any scrutiny, any questions: “We know best.” Well,

at least, they certainly did when it came to the miscellaneous statutes

bill, as they talked ad nauseam about that.

[4:10 p.m.]

I sure hope that they stand up to talk about this, because I would

love for the Okanagan’s constituents to at least hear about how you’re

going to support them — why it’s necessary to cut off committee stage,

why it’s necessary to cut off due process, why it’s necessary to abandon

democracy so that you guys can feel great, can feel powerful, can feel

invincible. I don’t know; I don’t know. What I feel is heartbroken,

heartbroken.

Today I rise to support this hoist motion. I plead with you on the

other side. I plead to your best interests: why you believe, why you

came here, why we all came here — for democracy.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to go through the Chair, please.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Speaker.

I ask on behalf of all the families — 18,000 of them. I ask on

behalf of the industry — forestry. I ask on behalf of the communities. I

ask on behalf of the Indigenous. I ask on behalf of the

environmentalists. Please give this more time. Support the hoist motion.

Press pause. Collaborate. Begin the conversation to actually make

something truly remarkable, truly sustainable and something that we can

all be proud of.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder — this is obviously a very passionate discussion,

as most discussions are — to go through the Chair.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to the hoist

motion on this, one of two forestry bills that are currently in debate

in this House. It’s something that I think is quite

remarkable.

I know that closure of debate is not new. We asked the librarians

to take a look at that for us, and it has actually been used often over

the last decade or so. It’s a tool that’s used as a government is trying

to get to the end of session and have their legislative agenda ended.

You know, one of the things I found remarkable about a lot of the

instances of closure that have showed up since 2003 is that, in many

instances, that closure has come by agreement, where both sides of the

House — their House Leaders, the Whips, whoever it is — get together and

have a conversation about it.

Oftentimes closure is needed because the official opposition, and

the opposition just in general — which is the part of the opposition

that I’m in — are asking a lot of questions. This isn’t to pass judgment

on the questions that are being asked. Let’s just assume that every

question that’s asked at that stage of debate is valid and is necessary

in informing the public about the bill that’s in front of them. Perhaps

there has been a time or two when a few questions that were needless

were asked as well.

However, it is the job of the opposition to scrutinize these

bills, because we don’t, in this chamber, make an assumption that the

piece of legislation that has been brought forward by the democratically

elected government of this House is perfect. We make the assumption that

the opposition, the loyal opposition, has a very legitimate and very

important job in this system of government that we have: to scrutinize

and to hold government accountable.

That’s what the stages of this debate process that we have this in

this House are all about: ensuring that the people of British Columbia

understand the laws that their elected governments are making and

understand that those laws have been able to withstand the test of the

scrutiny of the members of this side of the House.

[4:15 p.m.]

At times — not every session — government needs to be able to

invoke closure in order to be able to get to the end of a session. As I

said earlier, many times it has happened by agreement.

What’s unique about the situation that we’re facing today is not a

challenge of House management. That has been a challenge that I have

experienced since the day I was elected here in 2017. There has always

been a challenge in managing the House, from my experience. I have

complained about various aspects of House mismanagement, I would say,

over that period. I never had a chance to experience what the management

of the House was like prior to 2017, but I can tell you that it’s been a

challenge over the last 4½ years, five years, that I’ve been

here.

What’s unique about the closure of this bill is that it was

brought in, as has been pointed out previously — an 80-page bill,

brought in last week — to a legislative agenda that already was

languishing. There were already questions as to whether or not…. Anybody

who has been in these chambers for any period of time — you get a sense.

You have a feeling about what is coming and about what the last couple

of weeks are going to be like in any session. In this case, the last

week.

I had a feeling about four weeks ago that this House was in

trouble, partly because there was some time spent in this fall session,

in October, debating the throne speech. There is an

article written

about it. That’s a first to me. That is a real indication that the

government simply does not have its legislative agenda in order. It’s

remarkable that a forest minister would not be available to be here to

listen to the debate about the bill that they have tabled because they

are in the committee stage of another forestry bill that they had

tabled. That is remarkable, and an indication of really, really poor

House management.

There should be an expectation by the people of British Columbia

that the minister tabling a bill is available to listen to the debate,

because we would at least like to pretend that that debate is going to

inform the minister and the ministry. There is no pretence here. The

minister is currently unavailable. In fact, I had to pull myself away

from that debate to come and do this, and plead with my colleagues to

give me a few minutes of the time so that I can then go back and ask

questions in the committee stage of that debate. A really, really

remarkable mismanagement of the House, one that I find totally

unacceptable.

You see, I’m not so much irritated by the fact that we got to a

point where we have closure. I’m irritated at the fact that we have a

bill that is going to pass that is substantial, that had very little, if

any, or no time, for scrutiny by the members of this side of the House.

See, we get elected here, on behalf of the people of British Columbia,

so that the people of British Columbia don’t have to spend their time

doing this work. We do this on behalf of the people of British Columbia

so that then, they can go and do all of the other things that we need

British Columbians to do.

I can tell British Columbians at this point in the debate that the

bill that we’re debating right now is not going to have…. This forest

act — I can’t remember which one; is it 28…? Bill 28 did not have the

benefit of scrutiny. That might be the first time that a government

tabled a bill and then invoked closure with less than just a few hours

of debate available at committee stage — an 80-page bill. I think it is

important.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is completely appropriate to be raising the times in which

members on the other side of the House have raised concerns about the

use of this tactic. Again, I am less concerned about when this tactic is

used when the opposition is legitimately, or has been, dragging their

feet on something. That’s not the case in this bill. It was the

government’s choice to put this bill on the table. We didn’t force them

to bring this bill to the table. They put it there.

Now we’re going to have fundamental changes, complex changes, to

forestry legislation, most of which, as I review the bill, are

supportable. However, the nuances, the complexities need to be fleshed

out and understood. Zero percent opportunity to do that. That’s what’s

so egregious here. It’s not so much that the government…. It’s

irritating that the government is using this tactic, especially when

they could have chosen to manage the House more efficiently.

That’s the reason why I stand in support of this hoist motion.

What is the hurry to have this done now, when it could be done…? This

process could be started 60 days from now, the same number of days that

the other forestry bill is giving Indigenous nations to respond to a

notification. It’s the same period of time between now and when this

bill could be put on the papers. Okay, so maybe it’s 60 days plus two

weeks — 74 days, give or take. Once we get through that throne speech,

there could be a bill that’s already drafted. We could put it on the

order papers immediately.

In wrapping up…. I’ve got just a few seconds left here. I want to

say that one of the techniques the former government used, which I would

like to see this government employ, was putting bills on the order

papers in the spring for debate in the fall. This is a really, really

important nuance.

We’re debating bills that we’ve had less than 24 hours to review.

That, to me, is as much of an affront to the democratic process in this

House as it is putting a bill on the table a week before we’re done and

then not giving the House a chance to debate it before closing the

debate. The idea that we are given zero time to understand the bill that

we’re debating is also an indication from this government that they

don’t want serious debate on their legislation. I find that

inappropriate.

I stand with this hoist motion because I think that it is entirely

acceptable to suggest that this bill be pushed outside of this

legislative session and be brought back first thing in the next

legislative session, which starts about two months from now, for debate,

and for us to flesh out all of the important things that the Minister of

Forests wants to do with this bill and the intentions that this

government has with the reforms of forestry.

I pass no judgment on it, but I will judge harshly a government

that decides to put substantive legislation on the table and then give

the people who were elected to do this job no time to do it. That is

inappropriate and should not be supported by any members of this House,

whether you sit on this side of the House or that side of the

House.

Deputy Speaker: Just to explain for folks back home, standing orders do dictate

that members should not point out the absence of a member or minister

from this chamber. I let it go because the absence was organized.

However, I would not encourage the member to do that in another room or

any members to do that in this room going forward, okay? Thank

you.

C. Oakes: I stand in strong support of a hoist motion to ensure that all

members of this House have the adequate time to debate, to scrutinize

Bill 28, which is going to fundamentally have a significant impact on

the forest sector in British Columbia.

[4:25 p.m.]

I am incredibly troubled. I’m concerned. I’m anxious. I have a lot

of questions. It’s not just the workers, the contractors, the small

business owners, the people in my community…. I feel I have an elected

responsibility to come forward to this House, to raise their voices and

to bring questions forward. I feel I have a responsibility on behalf of

all British Columbians to raise serious concerns based on expertise that

I have gained from coming from one of the most integrated forest

communities in North America.

I want to acknowledge the words of the Leader of the Third Party,

when she highlighted the importance of democracy and process here in

this chamber. She talked about the process, that when we come through

those doors and we take our bow, in great respect and reverence to all

of the people who have come forward in this chamber, we come forward

carrying the voices of our constituents. We have a responsibility, every

single one of us, every single MLA, to have that adequate time to ensure

that when legislation is tabled, we have adequate time to ensure that

the voices, the concerns, the questions that people in our ridings have,

that we can bring them forward and get them answers.

The fact that this government has tabled not just Bill 28 but a

suite of legislative changes to forest policy that is going to

significantly disrupt our forest economy, forest communities, workers,

contractors, small businesses, Indigenous-led businesses in each of our

communities….

The reality is — and I raised it yesterday — it is also going to

have a significant impact on our housing stock. Consider for a moment….

Consider this. To all of the members in this House, what do you think

builds your houses in British Columbia? How does the Premier possibly go

and stand up in front of the Council of Forest Industries and talk about

building with wood and then dismantle the very systems that help build

it? What do you think is going to happen when you start closing 18

sawmills? Where do you think those wood products are going to come from?

Where is the lumber going to come from? Where are the trusses going to

come from? Where’s the plywood going to come from?

I have watched, over the years, when significant events happened

in the United States, whether it was a tornado or significant

environmental impacts on communities south of the border. We ship our

wood products down there, whether it’s plywood, whether it’s lumber, to

help support and look at their rebuild effort.

We’re looking right now, today, at the devastation that exists in

British Columbia. I look at Lytton, a community completely burned to the

ground. I look at Merritt, and I look at Abbotsford. I look at all of

these communities with such significant challenges ahead and consider,

in my mind, what it’s going to mean to rebuild.

I come from a community, again, one of the most integrated forest

products producers in North America. I understand from the sawmills down

to an MDF plant down to a pellet plant to an energy district heating

system to pulp. All of those industries exist in my community. It’s

rightfully so that I have concerns, that when I see a suite of

legislation that’s going to disrupt that, I am deeply

troubled.

I’m also deeply troubled that when I raised it yesterday, when I

talked about the people in my community, when I talked about the

workers, when I talked about the products that I am so proud that we

create here in British Columbia and in my community…. I’m proud of that

because it builds British Columbia. It builds homes for people. When I

raised these concerns, what was the response I got back from the

government? “You’re fearmongering.”

Well, you know what? You know one way to prove that I’m…. You know

what? Maybe I am fearmongering.

[4:30 p.m.]

Let us debate the bill. Let us go

section by section. Prove me

wrong. Prove that the concerns that I’ve raised in this House based on

expertise, based on the people that I know and respect in my community,

that they’ve raised those concerns for me to bring forward to this

House…. Prove me wrong.

Let us debate the bill. Let us debate

section by

section in

committee so that we understand the implications and the consequences

that this suite of legislation — and particularly Bill 28 — is going to

have in our communities. Let us debate the bill. Let us understand

section by section.

Don’t go and say that I’m fearmongering. Prove me wrong. Let me

get into the committee room and debate it

section by section. Let me ask

the questions that my constituents have for this government. Prove me

wrong. Call the bill. Let us debate it. Let us have the opportunity to

go

section by

section and have an understanding of the

implications.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I had the opportunity to talk a little bit yesterday about some of

the contractors, and I want to take a moment on this, because why I’m so

deeply troubled is: I don’t believe that this government understands

what the integrated forest product sector looks like in the province of

British Columbia.

Again, when we asked questions in the House during question period

today, the minister talks about her experience from decades ago. That’s

her experience on understanding what the forest sector and the workers