2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access

to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 12)

Hon. G. Abbott

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2005-2006 (Bill 6)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Community Services Statutes Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 10)

Hon. I. Chong

Patricia Community Club (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2006 (Bill Pr401)

M. Polak

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Steveston-London Secondary School

J. Yap

C. Joe

Richards

M. Karagianis

Francophone community in B.C.

J. Nuraney

Aiden Chatwin-Davies

R. Fleming

NoRooz celebration

K. Whittred

Kamloops Airport runway extension

C. Wyse

Oral Questions

Section 54.1 child protection

agreements

A. Dix

Hon. S. Hagen

L. Krog

Recovery of fish stocks in Cheakamus

River

R. Austin

Hon. B. Penner

Availability of corporate

non-compliance information to Sierra Legal Defence Fund

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Non-compliance list of industrial

polluters

M. Farnworth

Hon. B. Penner

Review of health care services in

Cariboo region

C. Wyse

Hon. G. Abbott

Appointment of Roger Harris as safety

ombudsman for Forest Safety Council

C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. de

Jong

Forest worker safety field inspector

positions

D. Routley

Hon. M. de

Jong

Agricultural bylaw in Delta

G. Gentner

Hon. M. de

Jong

Forest safety ombudsman

B. Simpson

Hon. M. de

Jong

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 7, 2005-2006,

Follow-Up of 2003/2004 Report 4:

Alternative Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change

Second Reading of Bills

Forests and Range Statutes Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 9)

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

H. Lali

H. Bains

N. Macdonald

C. Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Budget Measures Implementation Act,

2006 (Bill 2)

Hon. C. Taylor

J. Kwan

S. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (No. 1), 2006 (Bill 7)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2006 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House

Public Agency Accommodation Act (Bill

H. Lali

Hon. M. de

Jong

S. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Public Agency Accommodation Act (Bill

Second Reading of Bills

Employment Standards (Compassionate

Care Leave) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 8)

Hon. M. de

Jong

C. Puchmayr

Hon. B.

Bennett

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development

Hon. S. Hagen

A. Dix

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business

and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform (continued)

M. Karagianis

Hon. R. Thorpe

B. Simpson

G. Coons

G. Gentner

[ Page 2983 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: As a former Cub Scout many moons ago, it's my pleasure to welcome to the House a number of Scouts who are joining us from the Fifth Richmond-Steveston Scouts. There are four Scouts aged 11 to 13 — Nicholas Grahn, Miriam Pang, Matthew French, Andrea Zachata — with two Scout leaders, Elizabeth French and Jim Brown. These Scouts are here as part of their efforts to earn the citizenship pin. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

D. Routley: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Leanne Baird of the Vancouver Island Logger Safety Support Network.

J. Nuraney: Today in the gallery we have a group of 17 distinguished visitors from the free state of Bavaria in Germany. The delegation is accompanied by the consul general of Germany, who is stationed in Vancouver. The delegation is led by professor Dr. Gerhard Waschler, member of the Legislature and Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Youth and Sport. He is also accompanied by Mr. Hans-Ulrich Pfaffman, member of the Legislature and Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Youth and Sport.

Earlier this afternoon the Select Standing Committee on Education had the pleasure of a luncheon meeting with our distinguished guests. The delegation also met with the officials from the Ministry of Education this morning and is looking forward to meeting with the Minister of Economic Development tomorrow. Would the House please join me in offering them a very warm Victoria and British Columbia welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today I have actually three guests here in the precinct from my constituency. The first is the well-known, self-appointed watchdog for local politicians, and many of the municipal politicians here have felt his bite. He is here today with his son. I'd like to introduce Mr. C. Joseph Richards and his son Joey and have you make them welcome.

In addition, with them we have Dr. Basil Boulton, who's a well-known pediatrician here and also a municipal councillor in Esquimalt, and a colleague and friend of mine. Please make them all welcome here in the House today.

M. Polak: In the gallery today we have four representatives from South Carvolth Environmental School in Langley. I'd like to introduce Jill Adamovich, Lisa Carter, George Olver and Lucy Kucukgozen. Will the House please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have a guest who is also here with the many young Scouts in the gallery today. I've worked with this gentleman for some 28 years at Carling O'Keefe and Molson Brewery. Please make Jim Brown welcome for all his work.

K. Krueger: I wanted to introduce one of the newest constituents of the Minister of Health, who hasn't met him yet. The reason for that is that he was born only nine days ago. He's my grandson Austin David Neustaeter, and his older brother Noah, who was born out of session, calls him "baby Au'tin." Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: As you know, today we are celebrating in British Columbia the B.C. francophone community. We have a tremendous representation of the francophone community here today in the Legislature.

I'm going to highlight a few guests: M. Luc-Serot Alméras, the consul general of France in Vancouver; Michelle Rakotonaivo, president of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Barb Stegemann; Johanne Dumas; and colleagues from Maillardville and the city of Coquitlam. We have a large number of francophones in the visitor gallery who have participated in today's celebration of Journée de la francophonie. I ask the House to join me in making all of these people very, very welcome.

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the break, hockey players and hockey parents around the province were participating in a series of tournaments. One of those tournaments was for the Bantam Triple-A championship, and I'm pleased to report that the team from Abbotsford won that tournament and will represent this province at the western Canadian finals slated for April 9 in Kelowna. I hope the House will join me in congratulating the Bantam Triple-A team, who were successful, and also those teams — like the member from Juan de Fuca — that weren't. But there's always next year.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to introduce Paulette Bouffard, the executive director of the Collège Educacentre, the only francophone college in B.C. with four campuses across the province, and Anissa Boumeddane from Burnaby. Anissa is the winner of the 2005 Canada Post Literacy Award in individual achievement in the French language category. Would the House please make them both welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TOBACCO SALES

(PREVENTING YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006.

[ Page 2984 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 12 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. This bill aims to improve compliance with the Tobacco Sales Act, particularly as it relates to preventing the sale of tobacco products to minors. The existing law does not set out clear rules regarding what retailers must do to assess the age of prospective tobacco purchasers.

The amendments clarify what retailers must do to assess the age of purchasers. They will require that identification be checked for persons appearing to be under the age of 25, a process similar to existing rules under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and they will allow regulations to be made to specify the types of identification that are acceptable.

Violations of the act must presently be addressed through court prosecutions. Cases are not pursued due to competing court and Crown counsel time. Even when they are pursued, it may take months or years before a penalty is imposed. Suspensions under the existing system, after multiple court convictions, involve two separate pieces of legislation — the Tobacco Sales Act and the Tobacco Tax Act — and involve two ministries, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

The courts have described this process as convoluted, which I suspect indicates that they find them not favourable. The amendments will establish an administrative penalty that allows for monetary penalties and/or suspensions to be levied by the administrator without requiring prosecution through the courts. This will be similar to the system recently adopted by the government in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Environmental Management Act. Decisions of the administrator are subject to judicial review.

Consequential amendments will be made to the Tobacco Tax Act to allow desired policy goals to be implemented in the most streamlined fashion to minimize regulatory impacts for retailers. Linkages have been made between suspensions under the Tobacco Sales Act and the Tobacco Tax Act to ensure consistency between the statutes and reduce the risk of black-market tobacco sales.

Finally, the amendments will ensure that enforcement officials who are employed by the regional health authorities know where tobacco products are being sold. Tobacco use continues to be the number-one cause of preventable disease in this province. It is one of the pillars of ActNow B.C., which aims to continue B.C.'s downward trend of tobacco use.

ActNow B.C. is the province's health promotion platform with the goal of making British Columbia the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. An active lifestyle and a commitment to healthy living are the cornerstones of a healthy population and a key to a strong and sustainable health system.

These amendments will complement the broader tobacco control regulatory environment, which includes education, cessation programs, workers compensation provisions and local government bylaws restricting smoking in place. Reducing youth access to tobacco requires tough laws that are effectively enforced as reflected in these amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 12 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder to the minister that there is a time limit on these.

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2005-2006

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2005-2006.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 6 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Supply Act, 2005-2006 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1) of the Minister of Finance was debated and passed by this Legislature on February 23, 2006. That vote provided an additional $1 billion funding for ministries to make incentive payments for early agreements for the benefit of public sector employees under the negotiating framework announced by the government and the Ministry of Finance on November 30, 2005.

This short bill accommodates that increase in the amount of operating expenses to the tune of $1 billion for the Ministry and Minister of Finance for the purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

I move that Bill 6 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2005-2006, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

[ Page 2985 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 10 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2006. This act makes minor but important amendments to eight local government statutes for which my ministry is responsible, such as the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter, Local Government Act, Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act.

These amendments respond to various requests by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Development and Finance Review Committee or various and specific local governments. These amendments further enhance and clarify aspects of local government legislation and address some purely housekeeping issues.

A number of the amendments help streamline local government processes — for example, by reducing unnecessary provincial approvals; by making it possible for regional district boards to conduct committee meetings electronically; by adjusting the licence year for municipal commercial licence vehicles; another amendment on latecomer agreements, which means the cost of excess services will be more equitably collected from all property owners, who ultimately benefit from the initial developers investment.

Bill 10 also provides the city of Vancouver with flexibility to relax the requirements of its sign bylaw to accommodate technological innovations or temporary signs for special events.

I move that Bill 10 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PATRICIA COMMUNITY CLUB

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2006

M. Polak presented a bill intituled Patricia Community Club (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006.

M. Polak: I move the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

M. Polak: The Patricia Community Club was incorporated as a society in 1922. The society was removed from the register of companies and dissolved on November 10, 1988, for failure to file annual reports. The society continued to operate, not realizing that it had been removed from the register of companies.

If a society has been dissolved for more than ten years, the only way to restore the society is by a special act of the Legislature. This bill will restore the Patricia Community Club to its original state. I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Patricia Community Club (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[1420]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) STEVESTON-LONDON SECONDARY SCHOOL

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about an exciting change taking place in the Richmond school district. Charles E. London Secondary School and Steveston Secondary School are being combined into one facility.

London and Steveston secondary schools are located very close to one another, and following two years of consultation with parents and teachers, the schools were integrated into a coordinated campus. This decision gives students at both schools greater choice and flexibility, as students are able to take courses offered at either school.

Earlier this year the Richmond school board asked the public to submit possible names for this newly amalgamated school. Residents of Richmond submitted over 200 ideas to a committee consisting of school board trustees and staff. At a public meeting in February the name Steveston-London Secondary School was chosen. The province is contributing more than $13 million to the construction of the new $19 million, 5,000-square-metre annex, which will join the two schools. Construction began in February and is expected to continue well into next year. The two schools will merge and reopen under the name Steveston-London Secondary School in September 2007.

As a parent with two children currently enrolled in a public school in Richmond, I take great pride in the efforts of the government, Richmond school board, parents and teachers to bring the best possible education to students in Richmond. One of this government's great goals is to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. Our new school annex at Steveston-London Secondary will help us achieve this goal in Richmond.

C. JOE RICHARDS

M. Karagianis: A few minutes ago I introduced Mr. C.J. Richards — Joe, as he's popularly known here — as the political watchdog of the region. In fact, Joe is a bit of an institution in the area and a passionate advocate for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway.

Joe was born in 1925 and is a descendant of the historic Richards and Lohbrunner families. Joe's cousin

[ Page 2986 ]

May Richards was married to W.A.C. Bennett. Joe's grandfather Louis Lohbrunner and his two sons travelled the Trail of '98 seeking their fortunes in the Yukon gold rush. Max Lohbrunner was a whaling ship's captain. The remains of his ship the Green can be seen at very low tides from the blue bridge here in the Inner Harbour.

Joe's greatest passion stems from his father and uncle and their work on the E&N Railway. Joe's father was an engineer, and as a child, Joe would wait by the tracks for his father's train to return from Port Alberni to Esquimalt. Joe served in the Canadian army during World War II and then worked as a civil servant with the Queen's Printer for many years. Somewhere along the way he began to cultivate a keen interest in politics.

He has run for municipal office several times in the region, in fact running simultaneously in Esquimalt and Victoria at one point just to hedge his bets. Joe's real notoriety comes from his tenacity and outspoken manner, qualities that have made him the bane of many local politicians. Many of my friends here will recognize Joe.

His most steadfast focus, however, has been on the E&N Railway. His quest for a station in Esquimalt is legend, and his commitment to preserve and fight for the railway is constant to this very day. It is my hope that his wish will one day be fulfilled.

So I say: keep up the good work, Joe Richards. It's worthwhile, and the community is better off because of you. Thank you, my friend.

FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY IN B.C.

J. Nuraney: Merci, M. le Président.

Aujourd'hui vingt mars deux mille six, a été proclamée la Journée de la Francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. Coïncidant avec la Journée internationale de la Francophonie et la Semaine nationale de la Francophonie, cette proclamation rend hommage aux plus de soixante-trois mille francophones qui appellent notre province leur chez-soi.

Avec des racines francophones solidement fixées dans notre province depuis mille sept cent quatre-vingt treize, notre communauté francophone est la troisième plus importante à l'extérieur du Québec, de l'Ontario et du Nouveau-Brunswick.

La province collabore avec le Canada en matière de langues officielles, permettant à notre gouvernement de développer des partenariats avec la communauté francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. En novembre dernier, nous avons signé une entente historique avec le Québec de coopération et l'échanges en matière la francophonie.

[1425]

Il n'y a aucun doute que la communauté francophone se porte bien. Des événements culturels et artistiques se sont déroulés récemment, célébrant l'héritage francophone de la province. Pour en nommer quelques uns: le Festival du sucre d'érable de Nanaimo, le Festival du bois de Maillardville et le Festival de la francophonie de Victoria.

M. le Président, je vous prie de vous joindre à moi en félicitant et remerciant la communauté francophone de la Colombie-Britannique de ses contributions qui font de notre province la meilleure place où vivre au Canada.

[Today, March 20, 2006, has been proclaimed Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia. Coinciding with the International Day of la Francophonie and National Francophonie Week, this proclamation honours the more than 63,000 francophones who call our province home.

With francophone roots firmly planted in our province since 1793, we have the third-largest francophone community outside of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. In fact, there are 57 French schools in the province serving the francophone community. We are also home to Canada's largest number of French immersion students, with over 250 schools offering these studies.

We are building on this success. The province collaborates with Canada on official languages issues, allowing our government to develop partnerships with the francophone community of British Columbia. Just last November we signed a historic agreement with Quebec for cooperation and exchange on francophone affairs.

There is no doubt the francophone community is thriving. Cultural and artistic events have been held, celebrating the province's francophone heritage. To name just a few: Nanaimo's Maple Sugar Festival, Maillardville's Festival du Bois and Victoria's Festival de la francophonie .

Please join me in congratulating and thanking British Columbia's francophone community for their contributions in making our province the best place to live in Canada.]

[French text and translation provided by J. Nuraney.]

AIDEN CHATWIN-DAVIES

R. Fleming: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate a young constituent of mine, Aiden Chatwin-Davies, for an outstanding personal achievement. Aiden will be the recipient of the 2006 Youth in Action Award for the category of academics. The Youth in Action Awards dinner will be held tomorrow evening on Tuesday, March 21.

This award — which is an initiative of the Entrepreneurial Learning Foundation, the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce — recognizes the contributions of young people in our community. The award is a significant recognition of Aiden's dedication and his commitment as a student of Esquimalt High School. Aiden's hard work and achievement has been identified by his teachers, by his fellow students and by community members, and I would like to add my rec-

[ Page 2987 ]

ognition and congratulations for his achievement here in the House today.

NOROOZ CELEBRATION

K. Whittred: Today marks the new year for our province's Persian community. Last week I, along with hundreds of others, had the pleasure of attending NoRooz celebrations in North Vancouver. On one such occasion, Lonsdale Avenue was closed to traffic and transformed into a festival in celebration of the Persian culture. Everyone was able to enjoy Persian food, entertainment and cultural displays. Yesterday saw the Mickey McDougall Gym transformed into a wonderful Persian bazaar, complete with colourful traditional costume, traditional ceremony and dance and, of course, more food.

In harmony with rebirth of nature, NoRooz marks the first day of spring. The word NoRooz literally means "new day" in Persian. NoRooz is marked to bring hope, peace and prosperity. It is celebrated by people, regardless of ethnicity or religion, in many countries including Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Tajikistan, India and, of course, Canada.

Visiting friends and family is the very heart of the NoRooz celebration. Just before the new year, celebrants clean and decorate their homes. This custom is derived from the tradition that the souls of departed family members will come and visit the homes of loved ones on NoRooz eve.

On the eve of the last Wednesday of the year, bonfires are lit, and people jump over the flames as part of a purification ritual meant to keep illness away. This colourful celebration is called Red Wednesday, and it has become an annual event at Ambleside Park on the North Shore — attended, I might add, by hundreds of people.

Please join me in wishing everyone NoRooz Mobarak — Happy NoRooz.

KAMLOOPS AIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENSION

C. Wyse: In Kamloops last week, members of the NDP caucus met with the city council of Kamloops. As part of this discussion, city council outlined the need for an extension of the landing strip at the Kamloops Airport. The city council noted that the existing length of the runway restricts the size of aircraft that can land at Kamloops, and the present airstrip's length restricts the growth potential for the city.

Under the leadership of the mayor and council, Kamloops is changing its claim from being the tournament capital of B.C. to the tournament capital of Canada. In addition to offering its sports facilities to be used during the Olympics, the city of Kamloops is also looking at post-Olympic activities.

[1430]

An addition to the landing strip at Kamloops Airport would also allow local industries, such as Sun Peaks, to attract tourists directly from greater distances than what presently is allowed, given the length of the existing runway. Presently federal programs for airport development do not cover extensions like this. Now Kamloops is exploring various means to obtain financial support for the senior levels of government to expand its runway. I request the House to join in acknowledging the city of Kamloops's efforts to achieve one of its Olympic goals, a longer runway at the Kamloops Airport, and to extend our support with its discussions with the federal government on this matter.

Oral Questions

SECTION 54.1

CHILD PROTECTION AGREEMENTS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Section 54.1 agreements are a new form of guardianship introduced by the government at the same time as they proclaimed and implemented

section 8 kith-and-kin agreements in the summer of 2002. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why, more than three years later, the ministry has not provided formal training for social workers in 54.1 agreements and why the ministry is still attempting to operate this program for vulnerable children under draft practice guidelines?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, is it a new question?

A. Dix: A new question, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

A. Dix: Can the minister confirm that the standard of best interest of the child is so low under this program that since April 2005, the public guardian and trustee, as a matter of policy, is refusing to sign off on such agreements?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll take the question on notice.

L. Krog: My question is likewise to the Minister of Children and Families. The government's record around the botched implementation of

section 8 kith-and-kin agreements is not a timely one.

Can the minister explain why he did not take immediate steps to ensure that the material well-being of a child is considered in

section 54.1 agreements and that the children in those agreements are afforded the same basic legal protection as is afforded children who are the subject of applications under the Adoption Act?

Hon. S. Hagen: The focus of any social worker in the province who works for this ministry is for the health and safety of the child. To suggest anything else is untoward.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo has a supplemental.

[ Page 2988 ]

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, the public guardian and trustee has responsibility under no fewer than 20 statutes. One of the public trustee's main mandates is to protect the financial and legal interests of minor children. The minister has been refusing to listen to the public guardian and trustee for more than a year on this vital issue of child protection standards.

Will he not agree today, in light of what's happened in this province, to suspend the

section 54.1 program until the act is amended so that children can receive the same appropriate protections of the Supreme Court of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hagen: I will repeat again. The focus of any social worker in this province is for the health and safety of the child. To suggest anything different is inappropriate.

RECOVERY OF FISH STOCKS

IN CHEAKAMUS RIVER

R. Austin: We learned today that the Cheakamus River is the most endangered river in B.C. as a result of a chemical spill from CN Rail. The Minister of Environment has been advised by numerous groups involved in the cleanup of the Cheakamus River to choose the brood recovery option, which will allow natural steelhead stocks to replenish the river. The minister has stated that he will not choose this option. Will the minister reverse his position?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not aware of having made that statement. The member might want to do his research.

What I have said, though, is that we need to make decisions based on sound science. It is the science being put forward by professional biologists within the Ministry of Environment that because the Cheakamus is designated a wild steelhead river, it would be best to pursue a wild or natural recovery process. I'm also advised that that position was taken to the Cheakamus River steering committee for discussion last Friday. We're awaiting official word of what took place at that round-table discussion. I think it's important that we make decisions based on sound science.

[1435]

I had the opportunity to be there two weeks ago, and I saw some people fishing. I asked them what they were fishing for, and they said steelhead. I said: "Have you caught anything?" They said: "Yes, three fish." They caught three steelhead, so the river is recovering.

Obviously, we're angry at what took place, in terms of the derailment and the spill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: CN is being held fully responsible for all the costs of not just the immediate response but also the recovery, which is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I'm delighted to hear that there are still three steelhead left in the river.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: Issues surrounding the rehabilitation of any damaged stream are often controversial. However, all stakeholders need to be engaged and heard. In this case, the minister has only listened to scientists in his ministry but has ignored the suggestions and concerns of the community involved.

Concerned groups are requesting the Ministry of Environment take the precautionary approach to capture and breed natural Cheakamus stocks before all steelhead are extirpated from the river. This approach does not commit the Ministry of Environment to anything, and a decision could be made in the future not to use captured broods once the science is clearer. Will the minister reverse his position and listen to the suggestions of the community and their experts?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm very surprised to hear a member of the opposition so quickly discount the professional advice of our civil service — people who are trained fisheries biologists. That's a very risky proposition.

If he took the time to inform himself of this issue, he would take a look at what happened at Mount St. Helens, for example, around the time of that eruption in 1980. I still remember, having grown up here, the vivid images on television of the Tootle River completely clogged and plugged for two years. That river took time to recover, but I'm told it's back, healthier than ever before.

There is an opportunity, if we do things right in terms of habitat enhancement, which we are doing along the Cheakamus…. If we look at nutrient additions into that river, and we are looking at that…. If we direct the new conservation corps program and ask them to develop programs, which they're doing…. There are a lot of things we can do to help nature help itself.

It's really not helpful to people who rely on the tourism industry for members opposite to get up and say that's a dead river or somehow imply that it's a dead river. The river was essentially oxygenless for 12 hours on August 5, 2005. But fish that entered the main stream after that 12 hours are doing fine. They're breeding. People are fishing, actively angling. We want to continue that effort — and we will — based on sound science, not short-term politics.

AVAILABILITY OF CORPORATE

NON-COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

TO SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND

S. Simpson: Last week we learned that the government is demanding some $173,000 from Sierra Legal Defence for a freedom-of-information request asking

[ Page 2989 ]

for a list of corporate polluters in British Columbia — a list that prior to 2001 was made public as a matter of course. It's outrageous that a non-profit would be asked that amount of money for information that should be public.

But my question is around the actual ability of the ministry to produce the information. Sierra was told it would take over 3,600 hours by the staff of the government. It would take over 3,600 hours to research and find the information, and then close to 1,700 hours to edit it before it could be released.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: can he tell us if the information requested by Sierra Legal is readily available from the ministry? Will he table it, and will he table it in the House today?

Hon. B. Penner: When I heard that story last week on Wednesday, I was also interested to know how that number was arrived at because it is a very significant number in terms of the estimated financial cost. The member will know that pursuant to established freedom-of-information policy and legislation in the province, people requesting information are given a cost estimate before the work is actually undertaken, especially when it is as wide-ranging as this request.

This request went over a number of years, and ministry staff tell me it would have involved photocopying virtually every officer's notebook and memo pad across the province. That's how you end up with the number of 5,323 staff hours estimated. Now, pursuant to established policy and procedure, the applicant is entitled to go to the freedom-of-information commissioner, and that is what is taking place. That cost estimate will be reviewed for its accuracy.

[1440]

I should note, however, that the ministry did offer to provide, free of charge — despite our ability and legal authority to charge for it — information relating to non-compliance that was not already publicly reported through news releases and other means. That offer was apparently not accepted.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I find it interesting that the minister won't answer the question about whether the information is available. It's a little disconcerting that the ministry can't tell British Columbians about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: I'd like to quote from the same letter that told us it was 3,600 hours of work. The letter says: "The ministry recognizes five levels of regulatory non-compliance from administrative through major, which is characterized by a known or likely human health impact." The letter goes on to say: "Unfortunately, files are not organized into these categories. All files would need to be reviewed to identify those which at any one point in time fall into the major non-compliance category. We estimate that 5 to 10 percent of all regulatory files may fall into this category at any one time."

So my question to the minister is this. Is the letter to Sierra Legal accurate, and can the minister tell us how he is meeting the fourth great goal of the government if up to 10 percent of corporate interests aren't in compliance, but he can't tell us who they are and who is polluting and who isn't?

Hon. B. Penner: Well, it's true. There is a challenge in pulling together accurate and informational reports across the ministry because of the NDP legacy. In the 1990s the previous government left the ministry with 62 different antiquated, non-interconnected information systems — fully 62 different systems that did not have the full or adequate ability to communicate with each other. That made it difficult for the ministry to put out reports that were considered fair and reasonable even by their own staff.

Here's the good news. Shortly after I became minister in June, the ministry put out an RFP process calling for a new data management system. I'm pleased to report that a contract was signed earlier this year for a new $1.3 million first-phase instalment of this new management tracking system that will give us the ability, for the first time ever, to more accurately go after these types of violations and to get timely information for members of the public.

NON-COMPLIANCE LIST

OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS

M. Farnworth: We know what the top ten polluted and most endangered rivers are in British Columbia. Yet this minister is standing here in this House today, unable to tell us something as simple as: who are the top ten polluting industries or in non-compliance in this province? So let's make it simple. Will he commit to table in this House, for the past year of 2005, who the top ten non-compliance industries are in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps the member has forgotten what that former list was like. The staff told me that their concern at the time was that it was inconsistent. It tends to be ad hoc. One region in any given measuring period would tend to take a look at maybe pulp mills, while another region was taking a look at something completely different. It tended to compare apples to oranges. Industries could end up on that list simply because they might have been two days late in filing, and another company might end up on there because they dumped 10,000 litres of toxic substance into a river. That was hardly consistent.

When I asked why that was, I was told it was because of the inadequate, antiquated 62 different legacy systems left to them by the previous administration.

Interjections.

[ Page 2990 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: That's why we're taking action and spending $1.3 million to put in place a new state-of-the-art system so staff in different divisions can actually compare notes on the different kinds of permits that are issued to various industries across the province.

In addition to that, this year's budget has added $1.5 million for new enforcement initiatives, including the hiring of 18 seasonal conservation officers and, for the first time, four dedicated conservation officers in plain clothes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I'll keep track of when a person should talk and when they shouldn't.

Minister continues.

Hon. B. Penner: For the first time, we're going to have a plainclothes unit in the conservation officer service that is dedicated to tracking industrial and commercial compliance and to do added enforcement. That's something that party did not do when they were government.

[1445]

REVIEW OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN CARIBOO REGION

C. Wyse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gather it's now my turn to….

Mr. Speaker: It's your turn.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I've been in front of this House on numerous occasions regarding the condition of health care provided by Interior Health Authority. The report done by Deputy Minister Penny Ballem does not cover the impact of cuts to acute care beds and senior beds on the delivery of health care in this region.

Now city council of Williams Lake has passed a motion on health care and rights. City council of Williams Lake is very concerned with the state of seniors care in our community and is requesting that as minister responsible, you immediately undertake an independent review into the state of seniors health care in Williams Lake and in the Interior Health Authority with full powers to examine all Interior Health Authority records and the power to comment on how cuts to seniors care and acute care have impacted their families.

My question: will the Minister of Health commit to immediately undertake an independent review of health care under the Interior Health Authority as requested by the city council of Williams Lake?

Hon. G. Abbott: I had a chat with the mayor of Williams Lake last week. I know that he has some concerns with respect to the provision of health care facilities in Williams Lake. While I respect the advocacy on the part of the mayor and council in respect of those things, in my view, my best use of senior staff, best use of the ministry and best use of the health authorities is not to attempt to do reviews in every community. That, it seems to me, would simply be a recipe for inaction.

We know that we've seen important additions to the stock of assisted-living and residential care beds at Williams Lake. The Interior Health Authority is always prepared to sit down with the council of Williams Lake to talk about those issues. In fact, I raised this issue with Interior Health, and they have entirely expressed their view that they would be delighted to sit down with the council of Williams Lake.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: The point is missed here in the discussion, so once more I will bring forward another description from another part of Cariboo South, which describes health care as has been experienced in the very recent past.

From Deanna Lowe of Ashcroft, describing spending one day in the Ashcroft hospital before being transported to Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, where she spent nearly two days in the emergency area, then one day in a bed before being discharged on the fourth day…. This is just another example of the chaos caused when this government cut too many acute care and residential care beds. Once more, I refer to the minister's report with his deputy. It did not deal with the impact of bed cuts on the delivery of health care services within the Interior Health Authority.

My question once more: will the Minister of Health today commit to an independent review of health care services provided by the Interior Health Authority, including the effects that cuts to acute care beds and cuts to senior beds have had on the delivery of health care services by the Interior Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: When we took office in 2001, the health care operational budget was $8.3 billion annually. Today it is about $12 billion. We have enormously expanded the scope of services that are offered in this province, and we are obtaining remarkable results from that investment.

As the member knows, the Conference Board of Canada, based on 119 objective indicators, says that yes, British Columbia had, by some measure, the best overall health care system in the nation.

[1450]

I won't comment specifically on the case the member references. We don't have information with respect to that, and protection of privacy would constrain me in the comments. I would say that Ashcroft is a community-based hospital as opposed to Royal Inland Hospital, which is a regional hospital and offers many more complex services.

APPOINTMENT OF ROGER HARRIS

AS SAFETY OMBUDSMAN

FOR FOREST SAFETY COUNCIL

C. Puchmayr: Last week we saw some of the directors of the B.C. Forest Safety Council compromising its

[ Page 2991 ]

alleged independence by hiring former Liberal MLA and previous minister of state in charge of forest operations, Roger Harris, as its safety ombudsman.

Would the Minister of Forests agree that the appointment of someone who is responsible for introducing the rampant deregulation of the forest industry is counterproductive to the impartiality necessary for resolving the crisis that the deregulation has caused?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: For the member's information, perhaps, and the information of members, here is who the Forest Safety Council is comprised of: Central Interior Logging Association, Coast Forest Products Association, Council of Forest Industries, Interior Logging Association, Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, North West Loggers Association, Steelworkers-IWA Council, Truck Loggers Association, Western Fallers, Western Silviculture, WorkSafe, B.C. Timber Sales. That's who the B.C. Forest Safety Council is.

They have identified a need, they have identified a potential partial solution, and they have selected someone that they believe is qualified to do the job. If the member quarrels with that assessment, he should advise the Forest Safety Council. I will tell you that for my part, I think they've made a heck of a choice.

Mr. Speaker : The member for New Westminster has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: I see this as a breach of any impartial process. The appointee, Mr. Harris, was waiting outside the meeting room while his position was being voted on. Then — surprise, surprise — he's brought into the room to give his acceptance speech.

Will the minister intervene and rescind the appointment to allow for two things: one, a joint establishment of the terms of reference of the position for approval by all the stakeholders; and two, once the terms of reference are agreeable, engage in a public competition for a candidate that has the confidence of all parties, including the workers who are the greatest at risk?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's reported that years ago Churchill, a former Prime Minister, in an intimate meeting with Clement Attlee in the water closet at Westminster, said: "You know, Clement, the problem with you socialists is every time you see something in good working order, you want to grab hold of it and strangulate it with regulation."

No, we're not going to interfere. You know, part of what distinguishes that side of the House from this side of the House is that we actually think people are capable of making a decision on their own. The member may wish to disparage…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …the qualifications of an individual who began working in forestry at age 18, who worked as a representative of the IWA, who worked in his own forestry company and who suffered his own very serious injury. But I will not, we will not, and we will let the Forest Safety Council make this decision as they are entitled to do.

FOREST WORKER SAFETY

FIELD INSPECTOR POSITIONS

D. Routley: Mr. Harris, a former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister, Minister of State for Forestry Operations, and one of the architects of the restructuring of B.C.'s Forest Act, is not an inspector. Workers and contractors are pointing to a loss of field officers and nonexistent inspections as a direct cause of the increase in injuries and fatalities in the woods over the past two years. Will the Minister of Labour act to increase immediately the number of field officers carrying out inspections?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, a legitimate question in an area that legitimately falls within the government's concern. The answer is yes, because we've already done it.

[1455]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has a supplemental.

D. Routley: I'm assuming that the minister is referring to the 19 new positions that will take time to implement. There are over 6,500 independent contractors to be dealt with. B.C. Liberal cuts to the Forests ministry include workplace inspections down by 45 percent, written orders down by 49 percent and employer penalties down by 36 percent — this despite the fact that 43 people were killed in B.C.'s forests last year.

Already this year, four have died and 18 have been seriously injured. There have been at least four close calls. The minister's cuts caused a great loss in experience and capability amongst field officers. What will the minister do to immediately restore inspections to levels previous to his cuts?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I hope and I actually believe the member — as his colleagues and everyone in the House does — feels passionately about what has confronted us in forestry. I can tell the member — not just by words, but by deeds — what is taking place, and he has seen some of it. They aren't just words.

The IWA, the Steelworkers now, suggested the creation of a special coroner. None of us is pleased about the need for that, but there is, and we acted. The Forest Safety Council has made recommendations about changes to some of the timber sale mechanisms. The minister responsible, the Ministry of Forests, has acted.

We're not shy. I hope no one in this House is shy about acknowledging that last year was a very, very

[ Page 2992 ]

bad year — unacceptable. The year before, ironically, was the best year in a long, long time. So the objective of this government — and, I hope, this member; I'm certain this member — is to work to a day when every forest worker can leave home, go to work and come home safely to his family, and we won't be talking about any fatalities.

AGRICULTURAL BYLAW IN DELTA

G. Gentner: Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us why, having promised the corporation of Delta that he would sign off on the agricultural bylaw by October 15, he still hasn't done so?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Agriculture.

FOREST SAFETY OMBUDSMAN

B. Simpson: Well, the Minister of Labour speaks of the year prior to last as the best year in the forest industry with respect to safety. I know that the minister doesn't mean that 20-some-odd deaths constitute a best year, and I will grant him that.

The reality is that there is little comfort for anyone who has had a fatality in their family, and in particular a statistic that we don't talk about in this House, and that's the serious injuries that are occurring. Again this year, we're up to 18 already, four fatalities and four close calls — nothing to be proud of.

Now, the minister quotes a former Prime Minister of Britain and quotes a statement that I think is quite telling in this debate: "If something works, why strangulate it with regulation?" That's the presumption that appointing the ombudsman inside the council does not address. There are many, many people in the industry saying it's deregulation that has created the crisis that we have. So by appointing the ombudsman inside the council with the presumption that we will not re-regulate…. That's where the fallacy rests.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

B. Simpson: The question to the Minister of Labour is: will the minister agree to take the ombudsman position, which we all agree must be done, outside of the council and make it report to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia?

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: Except for the fact that it is apparently, in the minds of some members opposite, convenient to chastise the individual selected by the Forest Safety Council, I cannot for the life of me understand why the opposition would be critical of a legitimate attempt that the stakeholders who comprise the B.C. Forest Safety Council would be making to try and address the very problem that he mentioned just a few moments ago.

No, it's not a solution in and of itself. There are other issues that need to be and are being addressed. But an individual whom the majority of these stakeholders are apparently comfortable with to fulfil a job description that they have provided — not government, not the Legislature — is a decision that they have made. I cannot understand, and I think it is somewhat reprehensible, that members would chastise and malign the reputation of an individual who I can assure this House is single-mindedly dedicated to making forestry a safer profession in British Columbia. I'm hopeful, as are all members on this side of the House, that he will be successful.

[End of question period.]

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I would like to introduce to the assembly Kashmir Singh Bains, vice-chairman of the World Sikh Organization; Sukhvinder Kaur Singh Bains, his spouse; Surjit Singh Bains; Gurdev Singh Bains; Satwinder Dhaliwal; Satwant Dhaliwal and Ranjit Singh Bains. Welcome them to the Legislature.

G. Gentner: Mr. Speaker, I too seek leave to make a quick introduction of someone who has just arrived in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

G. Gentner: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House Donna Packer, the mayoralty assistant to Her Worship Lois Jackson, and George Harvie, the CAO of the corporation of Delta and a former colleague of mine in the Delta public parks and recreation commission.

It's also a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House the matriarch of local government, a woman who has been on the council of Delta since 1971 and was elected as mayor in 1991. Today she is now the chair of the Greater Vancouver regional district. Would the House please welcome the matriarch of local government — a mentor of mine, a dear friend and my neighbour, Lois Jackson.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present Report 7 of the Auditor General, 2005-2006, Follow-Up of 2003/2004 Report 4: Alternative Payments to Physicians, A Program in Need of Change .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, contin-

[ Page 2993 ]

ued discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. In

section B, this chamber, second reading of Bill 9. For the information of members, whenever that is complete, we'll move to Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now.

Bill 9 proposes amendments to a number of forest statutes. Amendments in this bill strengthen government's ability to inspect and audit business records to verify stumpage revenue owed to government. Government already has this ability in all other resource industries. These amendments will enable the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue to do the same in the forest sector.

The Ministry of Forests and Range already has, and has had for many years, a thorough system to ensure that correct stumpage is assessed and paid. These amendments will complement those ongoing efforts.

Bill 9 also updates the Forest Act to allow for administration of some licences through regulation. Currently, the act allows a ministry to enter into a single licence to cut that can cover a number of harvesting activities needed for oil and gas exploration in a particular forest district.

[1505]

Yet we can't offer the same one-licence approach to other enterprises such as B.C. Hydro, which has to maintain hydro rights-of-way. The amendment proposes to provide regulation-making authority that would enable the ministry to issue a licence for B.C. Hydro so that it can manage all its harvesting under one licence rather than multiple plans.

Bill 9 proposes amendments to other forest statutes. We propose to amend the Forestry Revitalization Act to allow more time to implement timber reallocation. The current deadline is March 31, 2006. This will be extended to March 2008. This change will provide more time to consult with first nations.

This bill also amends the Forest and Range Practices Act to ensure a smooth transition from the former Forest Practices Code. The Forest and Range Practices Act is to be fully implemented on January 1, 2007. Some cutting permits and permissions have already been approved. This amendment will allow harvesting to be completed after January 1, 2007, without requiring the licensee to complete new plans and permits under the results-based code.

Additional amendments to the silviculture obligations will ensure that reforestation is managed in the long term. Right now some holders of short-term forestry tenures are able to shift their silviculture obligations to the Crown in return for a payment. This ensures that reforestation is managed in the long term by the Crown, using the licensee's funds. Today's amendment makes sure that this rule also applies to the holders of the forestry licence to cut.

These amendments will ensure that forest officials can issue remediation orders in cases where activities like unauthorized trail construction have caused damage.

Bill 9 also proposes changes to the Wildfire Act. First, to protect all grasslands, the amendments clarify that the definition of grasslands applies to land under cultivation. The amendments also clarify the obligations of people conducting activities like open burns.

Amendments address the compensation needs for industry partners who carry out fire control. Currently, if a fire is detected and a licensee is on the ground with all the training and tools, we want them to get in there and control that fire until ministry crews arrive. The ministry has a mechanism to compensate the licensee for this work, including covering equipment and losses if they occur. The proposed amendments will ensure that this working agreement is supported by law, so there are no disincentives for licensees to respond in a timely way to fires.

In June 2005 the Ministry of Forests was renamed the Ministry of Forests and Range to reflect the importance of range management in our responsibilities. Today's amendments propose to update the name of the Ministry of Forests Act and to update the "Purposes and functions"

section of the act. Finally, the act makes consequential amendments to ensure consistency with the name change throughout all acts.

B. Simpson: One of the things I soon found out when I was appointed as critic for Forests and Range is how much you get mired down in policy and legislation and so on. This is a big, big ministry with a lot of legislation, and I can understand why the general citizen has trouble figuring out what their rights and their obligations are.

However, this is the second amendment act I've had the opportunity to deal with, and as a consequence, I want to thank the government members and the minister for giving me an opportunity to educate myself about all of the various legislation and acts that are involved in this.

We've had a number of amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act since it was tabled. In fact, Bill 69 in a previous Legislature had 50 pages of proposed amendments. We had another series of proposed amendments in the fall, and now, yet again, we have more. This is evidence that lack of full and robust consultation results in poor legislation and in poor execution of that legislation.

In my short tenure as an MLA, I've had the opportunity to engage my community in a number of events. In fact, every one of those events has been the result of poorly executed activities on the part of this government. We had to have one on private crossings, because those were not taken into account when this government sold B.C. Rail and private crossing holders were left to their own devices. We had to bring government in there from the federal government. We had

[ Page 2994 ]

to bring people from CN and try and explain to those people why they got left out in the cold.

[1510]

Septic system. New regulations for those impacted rural British Columbia in a fairly significant way. We had individuals who went from a $4,000 bill to a $20,000 bill. We had areas like Horsefly, where cabins were not built because the septic system was more expensive to put in place than the cabin itself. Again, as a result of lack of consultation on the front end in framing the regulations, we get poor execution, and then you have to keep going back and revisiting it.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Finally, we're dealing with a situation just now around meat inspections that falls into the same category.

One thing, though, in this case, is that these amendments do not address the ill feeling and cynicism that comes when legislation is crafted in the absence of robust consultation in the first place. People get cynical. People feel that their voices are not heard, and as elected officials and as supposed leaders of this province, I believe we have an obligation to do a much more robust consultation process in the beginning of any legislative cycle and prior to any legislation being framed.

This legislation is also against the backdrop of a very significant range of changes in the forest sector — changes to the land base and changes to how the forest sector is operating. The substance of these changes, many people have argued to me on many occasions, has been, effectively, the privatization of our public resource. Under this government we have removed the mill closure review. Under this government we've removed appurtenancy, which gave communities the ability to have a secure wood supply to a manufacturing facility that they knew would supply jobs and that they knew would supply local taxes into the municipality. It was removed by this government.

The removal of cut control. The cut control removal has a particular saliency on the coast, because on the coast we have now gotten into what everybody calls lurch logging. Lurch logging is one of the aspects of forest safety on the coast that everyone is concerned about, and it directly comes as a result of changes to legislation that this government has put in place.

We have also removed the oversight and the clawback for transfers of licences. That removal of the oversight has, therefore, allowed significant corporate concentration to occur in the British Columbia forest sector. There's a certain irony to that, because if you go back and you look at this government's revitalization strategy, one of the things that they stated they explicitly wanted to achieve was a greater diversity of tenures. Well, the sad reality is that we have less diverse tenures. We have more concentration of the land base.

When Western Forest Products purchases Cascadia and finishes that deal, it will have within its control and the control of one single company, 42 percent of the allowable cut. Combined with B.C. Timber Sales on the coast, two licensees will control almost 65 percent of the cut on the coast. That's not diversity of timber supply.

We will also see in the interior that north of 100 Mile House we have two licensees. We have Canfor and West Fraser that have control now over 70 percent of the land base and 70 percent of the operating facilities there. Again, we have not seen the diversity that was promised under the Forestry Revitalization Act.

Now, again, I'm not impugning any of those corporations. Those corporations have to do what they have to do for their shareholders. What I'm calling into question is whether or not the government, through its actions, even achieved its own intended outcomes. The proof is that they did not.

We have also now got the ability to partition tree farm licences and forest licences. So effectively, by removing the oversight, by removing the 5-percent clawback penalty on transfers and by allowing them to be partitioned, we have said that holding a licence in British Columbia is like holding a private holding that you can do with as you wish.

[1515]

The province and the people of British Columbia have now been cut out of any discussions around the implications of those flipping of licences for their communities, for workers. Over top of all of that, first nations have effectively been cut out of any of the consultative process. I'm glad to see in this bill that there is some squiggle room being built for first nations around the clawback, and I will explore that shortly.

Under this government we also had the introduction of a so-called results-based code. One of the aspects of the results-based code that the Forest Practices Code has just allowed the public of British Columbia to understand is the absolute lack of ongoing consultation and requirement for consultation with the people of British Columbia.

As the Forest Practices Board pointed out, there is a limited 60-day window on a macro plan that does not have the details required in it for site level planning or for implications of forest operations on the land base. It's a macro plan. That, again, according to an internal document. The Forest Practices Board will only state minimum legal requirements.

From that point forward, at the end of this year, when all those forest stewardship plans are put forward, the public of British Columbia will not have direct access to say what they want to see happen on the land base. The licensees may make their plans available and only by request. We no longer have the ongoing consultative process.

Then another major aspect of the government's changes is the revitalization strategy. The clawback of 20 percent that's supposed to go out to various tenures. The compensation for licensees, contractors and workers. Again, in this House, we have debated whether or not the definition of an eligible worker is broad enough, given that this government had to know that many more workers would be impacted, that mills

[ Page 2995 ]

would close, that log sort yards would close, that other workers working on private lands in other places would also be impacted by these changes.

Again, because of the restructuring that the revitalization strategy promoted, we then have the safety implications that we've experienced, particularly on the coast, as unionized crews with full experience under good supervision were forced to switch over to owner-operators, single-operator contractors, and forced to be out in the bush, making marginal returns under pressure. If you roll that back into cut control and the impacts of lurch logging, roll that back into the so-called results-based code and the relaxation of standards on the land base, it all rolls up to what we saw last year in our forests.

Finally, the formation of B.C. Timber Sales. I have to say that the formation of B.C. Timber Sales and the activities of B.C. Timber Sales on the land base are probably the number one level of complaints that I get coming across my desk as the critic for this portfolio. In fact, just this past week I had the privilege of going into Lillooet and up into the Yalakom valley to look at proposed cutblocks that B.C. Timber Sales has in Ore Creek. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I fail to understand how in today's world, understanding ecosystems and the implications for water management, those cutblocks could be put out for bid.

We also have a situation this week where B.C. Timber Sales was again implicated in water management issues and various other issues on Vedder Mountain. I've got another one today where again water quality issues are being brought into consideration. So the formation of B.C. Timber Sales has been a problem and continues to be a problem.

As I pointed out in the last estimates debate, a big portion of that comes from what we measure B.C. timber sales as, and that is bottom-line measurements. We have the B.C. Timber Sales, a Crown agency that does not seem to act in good stewardship of a Crown resource and a public resource. They act on the basis of a bottom line, and no fault of theirs. That's what they're measured against. That's what they perform to.

[1520]

So, rightly, the communities and workers who speak to us, the communities and workers who try to have their voices heard by the government are saying: "Hang on a second here. We have been shut out of what should be a public resource that we derive public benefit from. We've been shut out." In order to somehow make larger corporations globally competitive, we haven't had a voice at the table to say: "Whatever happened to that social contract? Whatever happened to that presumption that the public forests gave benefit to local communities, the presumption that public forests gave benefit to workers and their families, and that public forests gave benefit to the province?"

Again, so that I'm not mistaken, I have nothing against large corporations doing what they have to do. They have to position themselves to be competitive. They have to answer to their shareholders, but there's a legitimate role for government. In this case in particular there's a legitimate role for government because this is all done on the basis of a public resource, not a private one.

So against that backdrop, we have a situation in which we have a series of amendments tabled to various bills that do not address the substantive issues that British Columbians are telling me are of concern to them with respect to the forest industry. This bill doesn't address the safety issues. It's silent. There's nothing in this bill that I can find that speaks to the minister's commitment to make sure that B.C. Timber Sales will not allow people to operate on the land base if they have a record of poor safety.

Right now B.C. Timber Sales is a high-price, high-bid process, and I believe in order to achieve what the minister is stating, we need to see legislative changes. They're not here. We don't see any reinstitution of any of the standards that were removed and undermined as we moved into this so-called results-based code.

We had a meeting with WorkSafe B.C. where we were talking to them about the new compliance enforcement officers that the Minister of Labour spoke about in question period today. First off, they were saying that it's going to take them a long time to get those people up to speed. As the member pointed out, we lost institutional memory as a result of the cuts that were done. But as we get them up to speed, and as WorkSafe B.C. tries to figure out how to enforce higher standards, what they've realized is that they no longer have the capacity to do that, because we have undermined those standards. This bill does not address that.

This bill does not address the issues in the

section that it has on cut control,

section 7…. It doesn't introduce anything in the cut control

section that will prevent lurch logging. In fact, my rudimentary reading of it and understanding of it is that, if anything, it has the potential to exacerbate that. I look forward to exploring that when we go into third reading on this bill.

This bill also does not address first nations concerns. While the minister indicated that by extending the end date for the Forestry Revitalization Act, it will allow the ministry to engage first nations…. That introduces a whole bunch of questions. Does that mean that for those who have already been compensated, they're now going to go back and revisit those for first nations consultations? Is it only the residual ones that will have more robust first nations consultations? Those are questions we'll look to explore.

It doesn't address the fundamental issue that in all of the structural changes that were made to the tenure system, every one of them has the potential to undermine the Crown's obligation for accommodation and consultation. That's the issue on TFL 44. That's the issue around this province.

It also doesn't address the weaknesses in forest and range agreements and their supposed replacement, forest range opportunities. Again, the minister is well aware that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has rejected the forest range opportunities which were supposed to remedy the issues in the forest and range agreements. They've rejected them. In fact, right now, as far as I

[ Page 2996 ]

understand — and I'm always open to be proven that I don't understand things correctly because of the complexity of this file — there isn't one first nation that has actually taken the invitation and the offer to access the timber available to them under the current forest range agreements.

So even though they've been signed…. Effectively what it means is the first nation has had a cheque cut to them, they have an invitation now to come and access timber, but to my understanding they haven't done that. Many of them haven't done that because of fear that the minute they do, for five years they will give up their rights to then come to this government and say: "Other operations in our land area, in our interest area, in our treaty area, are not satisfactory to us." That's a significant concern for first nations not addressed in this bill.

[1525]

What's also not addressed in this bill, and it's unfortunate, is — as we raised in the fall session — the issue of eligible workers. There is no redefinition of eligible workers in this amendment. Quite frankly, there needs to be. There should have been. It ought to be there. The minister is fully aware, because he's getting the stuff across his desk that I am, that we have mill workers who are saying they've been unfairly treated. We have workers who are being unfairly treated, in their estimation, as a result of private lands coming out of TFLs. We have log sort yard operators who are not part of the eligible workers.

We have a whole slew of people who are now saying: "Hang on. The government ought to have known that this revitalization act would impact us, yet they did not define us as eligible workers. We're supposed to somehow go out and do our own thing — I don't know, apply for a job at a call centre or something." That's unacceptable. That definition should have been amended in this act, and it's not. Those are the concerns the people of British Columbia have, and they're not being addressed by this bill.

Section 7 of this bill on cut control is also a very interesting section. Again, it's no wonder you need lawyers. The minister gave me an info session last time on how bills are created and who has to see it and that the Attorney General has to look at it and so on. I can understand why.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: It was a lecture? I'm hearing that it was a lecture, not an info session.

One of the aspects of reading this bill is that it's really hard to understand what the implications are of the changes to cut control — in particular,

section 7, which deals with the extension of cut control to other licensees that is transferable to other licenses and transferable from one cut control period to another. Those are things we need to explore, because those have significant implications for operations on the land base, significant implications from the perspective of safety, significant implications from the perspective of a sustainable, incremental wood supply to local mills and local operators.

It needs to be explored further, and I look forward to being educated on what it means. Also in that cut control

section is a whole

section on waste. In my neck of the woods, under the mountain pine beetle salvage operations, I have had many, many complaints about the waste being left behind on our blocks. People talk about us going back to the old industrial model of logging, where you creamed what you could run through your mill and make good products of, and you left everything else behind.

I have been out on those blocks. I have seen that waste, and I have significant questions about what the implications of that are for silviculture, for fire and for the overall use of that for any other species that wants to use that land base, because they cannot walk in those cut blocks. There are aspects of this bill under that

section that talk about the waste and what will be allowed as waste, what will be deducted and compensation for the licensees.

This bill also does not deal with the issue of the impacts of corporate concentration on tenure, and that is a significant issue. If you talk to anybody who works out in the bush right now, they will tell you that we have not done all of the mid-level and small players in the forest sector any service by creating a system that has allowed the degree of corporate concentration that has gone on just now.

[1530]

It allows those large licensees to effectively have a monopoly and to control an entire town. In the case of Prince George, all you have to do is look at the backlash from Prince George when Canfor decided to do something in the best interests of their shareholders and take their pulp mills and put them in an income trust. That sent shivers through the entire community, because the community read it as the possibility that Canfor was getting out of pulp. When you're a single-licensee town or a single-company town, it makes you very nervous when those kinds of things occur.

Under this forest revitalization strategy, under the changes to the Forest Act, this government has allowed a degree of corporate concentration in this province that is amazing — with the rapidity with which it occurred, the depth to which it has gone and the implications that it has had on the entire forest sector.

One aspect of that, which again this bill is silent on and does not address, is the implication for the so-called market pricing system. On the coast the market pricing system is supposed to be fully operable. Yet you have Western Forest Products, which will end up with 42 percent of the cut. B.C. Timber Sales will end up with 20-plus percent of the cut. TimberWest is the next big one in there. Where is this plethora of smaller operators that are supposed to be bringing logs into the marketplace and setting a log market price?

The reality is that the market pricing system is based on standing timber, not logs. That was a piece of advice that was given to this government very early in this process. A log market, and a true log market,

[ Page 2997 ]

would drive a completely different tenure system, one in which communities can truly get involved, one in which smaller licensees can get involved. But this government chose not to go that path. It chose to go on a market pricing system on the basis of standing timber. With corporate concentration we don't really have a market pricing system. Again, Bill 9 does nothing to address that concern.

Bill 9 also does not address the emerging implications of forest stewardship plans. Forest stewardship plans are the one window of opportunity under the Forest and Range Practices Act, which comes into effect this year and which, the minister stated in his own opening comments, takes full effect January 1, 2007.

The Forest Practices Board has seen a number of those plans and will shortly be issuing a statement, and it's a statement of concern. Those forest stewardship plans — as a result of a whole bunch of structural issues that this government has not addressed and has created, in fact — are minimum legal requirement plans that use the catchphrase of the Forest and Range Practices Act: "We'll deal with this watershed or quality or wildlife, provided it doesn't unduly constrain timber supply."

The nervousness in communities is heightening. We have a serious issue with forest stewardship plans and how they're being delivered and how the ministry is dealing with them. Again, Bill 9 is not pre-emptive and gets in and addresses the seriousness of those concerns.

Quite conceivably, by the end of this year British Columbia could have all of its timber supply areas, tree farm licences, forest licences and timber sales covered under minimalistic, legalistic documents that tell no one how other values on the land base will be protected, how they will be realized and how we will be good stewards of the forest going forward. That is not acceptable, and Bill 9 does not proactively address that issue. The minister should be well aware of what the Forest Practices Board is saying about this issue, and it's unfortunate that it was not corrected in this bill.

As I've mentioned, the stewardship functions of B.C. Timber Sales are an increasing concern. Again, they fall under that cache of the forest stewardship plans, but the bill doesn't address that. B.C. Timber Sales, the loss of category-three sales, the loss of category-two sales — the sales that were a part of the small business program that drove small business in this province…. The small business ventures are gone. B.C. Timber Sales is not in this bill. It isn't addressed.

If we look — and I will be going into estimates debate on this very issue this afternoon — at what's happened to secondary wood manufacturing, small manufacturing and the small players in the forest sector, over the last six years it has been absolutely, to coin a phrase of the other side of the House, dismal.

[1535]

We have had a dramatic reduction in the number of value-added producers in the small business sector in the industry, all as a result of this government's policy. Again, Bill 9 does not address it.

Finally, another absence in this. There's a

section on wildfire. We're going to take a look at that

section when we get into the bill. I'll speak to it in a couple of minutes.

The issue about wildfire management, the issue about the Filmon report is that we have to address liability, tenure and resources. Who holds the liability for the wild land–urban interface? Where are the resources to do the fuel management in that? And who ultimately holds the liability for that? Bill 9 is silent on those issues.

With respect to the substance of Bill 9, I have a number of questions that I will explore in committee stage.

First of all, the master licence to cut. I understand the ministry's directions in moving in this way. There are others out there, other than oil and gas and so on, that need to do some work on the land base because they've got some property — whether it's telephone lines or power lines or whatever the case may be.

The question, however, that's not addressed in this bill and that I look forward to exploring with the minister and his staff is: what are the stewardship requirements around the master licence to cut? Again, the Forest Practices Board has pointed out that we are losing control up in the Peace. We have all kinds of activity on the land base. We have all kinds of timber resources that are being taken down and roads being put in. We don't seem to have control over that under this vehicle of master licence to cut.

By happenstance, I had a call from a constituent of mine when this bill was tabled before the recess. The call was about concern that B.C. Hydro is effectively mowing down the forest at all strata — from the youngest to the oldest — a tree-and-a-half length on either side of their hydro lines. That is the kind of practice that will be allowed under a master licence to cut without sufficient oversight, and we need to explore the implications of that as we expand those who are eligible for master licence to cut. I'm also curious to know whether master licence to cut could be a vehicle that we can use to equip communities to deal with interface fire management.

The FRAP program, as the minister pointed out…. We're curious about the co-ordination between the ministries and also whether or not third-party contractors can actually run that program.

As I've mentioned, changes to cut control need to be examined and the compensation that comes with that. The free-to-grow obligation also begs further discussion. What are the implications? Because there's a lot of nervousness out there that we are creating a very large unfunded liability around the silviculture obligations, particularly in mountain pine beetle areas.

I've mentioned the revitalization act and what the first nations consultation will look like. Will it be retroactive? If so, how can it possibly be retroactive when the deal is signed, the money is paid and the land taken back? Under the Wildfire Act, again, I'm curious about the obligations that this imposes on licensees and operators out in the forest and have questions about why we should be compensating licensees.

H. Lali: You know, I have listened to the forestry critic's comments very carefully, and I agree with the

[ Page 2998 ]

comments that the critic has made on behalf of the NDP. I'm going to take some time out here. I see the minister across the way motioning to me that it's shocking. Actually, the fact of the matter is that the state of the forest industry in British Columbia and how it is being managed, or should I say mismanaged, is shocking — what has happened in the last four to five years.

This Bill 9 is really a response to the Liberal incompetence in terms of managing or mismanaging the forest economy in this province. I want to speak to that. I want to speak to the dismal record of this Liberal government over the last four and a half years in terms of the state of affairs of the forest industry and how it's affecting workers and communities and small businesses involved in it.

[1540]

If you take a look at it, basically what has happened is this Liberal government has done everything it possibly can to bend over backwards to those corporate entities who financed their election bills. That's exactly what they have done — turn around and take. At every attempt, what they've done is take forestry that was managed by the public out of the public realm and put it in private hands so that those large companies, those megacompanies could benefit the most, and that's exactly what they've done.

This Bill 9 is less about what this government is going to do to try to fix the problem that it created; rather, it's more about what it is not prepared to do, and that is to actually address the real issues that are out there. In order to try to fix the problem that they created to begin with, they're going to wreck it even further. That's the direction that I see the Minister of Forests is heading.

What we've seen over the last four and a half years is that there is less and less monitoring function from the ministry side at the regional and the district level than there used to be prior to 2001. Because this government has, through its massive cuts to those entities that manage our land base — our forestry, our environment and our agriculture…. The cuts are beginning to finally hurt. What we've seen is that even in a…. Under the purview of the Merritt forest district you have the Lillooet and Merritt TSAs. We had 109 employees prior to 2001.

This government's cuts have left 46 employees there, and those monitoring functions, like I mentioned, now are in the hands of those private entities that are actually cutting our forests, as opposed to the overseeing function that government, through its regional district offices, is supposed to have.

This government has also devastated the small business program cat 1 and cat 2 programs as well. In 1991 slightly more than 10 percent of the wood was going into the hands of the small operators. By the end of the decade of the 1990s we were inching up towards 20 percent of the amount of wood that was going into the hands of the small operators that were value-added remanufacturers, the remanners, and the little outfits that actually created lots of jobs.

What this government has done through its policies of killing the category 2 small business program is that it has gone deliberately out of its way to take the wood out of the hands of the small operators and put it back into the hands of those megacorporations who control 85 to 90 percent of our wood to begin with. In essence, what it has done is taken from the have-nots and given it to the haves, and we see more and more increase in terms of the privatization which has also taken place, which my colleague had spoken so eloquently about a few minutes ago.

What this government has also done in terms of taking wood away from small operators, leaving communities helpless, not giving aboriginal people a fair share of their participation in the forest economy and in terms of workers not being able to get employment in so many communities…. If it hadn't been for the lumber prices going up, we would continue to be devastated, as we were for most of the early part of this particular decade under this regime.

The 5-percent takeback. When a licence changed hands from one owner to another, there was a 5-percent takeback which actually went to communities or to aboriginal participation in the forest economy. They've eliminated that.

The Liberals have also eliminated the mill closure review process so that forest companies are not accountable anymore. They've killed the appurtenancy clause as well, and I'll give you the example of two mills. When I was the MLA for Yale-Lillooet in the '90s, to make sure Weyerhaeuser was not going to walk away with timber in Merritt, we kept as a part of that 120,000 cubic metres of the wood to make sure jobs were available in Merritt. J.S. Jones — we didn't allow that mill to go down. Six months after the NDP left office this Liberal government allowed that mill to go down and allowed that timber to actually be taken out to other mills so that Boston Bar was left holding the bag.

[1545]

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson — whose duty it was to stand up on behalf of his constituents to make sure that the mill that was burned down in Louis Creek would be rebuilt by Tolko and hold them to task — capitulated to the corporate interests. Not only that, Tolko was one of the biggest financiers of Liberal election campaigns over the last several elections now. You can't tell me there is no direct link there in terms of the Liberals there, financing Liberal campaigns, and then on the other end they're not doing anything to make sure those companies are held accountable.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member that to allege impropriety on another member's

part is not parliamentary. It is inappropriate.

H. Lali: I abide by the Speaker's ruling, and I retract. I meant no harm to anybody's reputation, hon. Speaker.

What we've got is this government turning the timber over to the wolf — really, it's the wolf actually

[ Page 2999 ]

looking after the chicken coop — in terms of the monitoring function. You self-monitor to see how much you're cutting in terms of your annual allowable cut in the forest. That should be the ministry's function, not the company's function — especially on the coast, where it's really devastating in terms of the…. Had it been the 1990s, the overcut situation that they would have been in or the undercut situation the companies would have been in….

Let's talk a little bit about B.C. Timber Sales as well. B.C. Timber Sales has absolutely no interest in looking after the small business operators and those family-run operations in this province. It's all about looking after the big corporations in this province, and that's exactly what B.C. Timber Sales is doing. I've talked about how basically at the end of the day it's the mismanagement of our forest economy and our forest industry that these Liberals are trying to fix, and what they're going to do is actually wreck it even further.

We got Bill 9 that wants to…. They want to make some changes, and yet it's all because of heavy industry lobbying. It's not because of any lobbying that is done by the small operators or the aboriginal people that this government is listening to in terms of making changes. It's all because of the Tolkos and the Mac-Blos and the Weyerhaeusers and those other large corporations that they're actually doing this on behalf of.

If you look at the changes to the Forest Act,

section 47.4. It wants to streamline cutting permits — the government does — to holders of a master licence to cut. Licence holders no longer need to reapply for multiple logging permits and can now go directly to a district manager for a cut permit on an as-needed basis. Again it is removing the function of the deputy minister and handing it down to the district level. So in essence, what you're going to get in every district across this province is that you're going to have forest policy being interpreted in different ways by different district managers.

Where is the fairness in this in terms of a particular company that is operating in two or three or four different districts, where you've got each manager who's going to be interpreting things in a different way? This totally removes the deputy minister's function.

If you look at the Forest and Range Practices Act, the changes to it include forestry licences to cut in the group of licences that are able to request that the government assume their silviculture responsibilities. Again, we've had for decades now…. It's the responsibility of the licence holder to make sure the silviculture is going to be done — where their annual allowable cuts are.

Now what's happening is that this government is going to take over that responsibility and give further breaks to those big companies they've been giving breaks to so that they have less responsibility in terms of their obligations and that. The government is going to take that over. Yet they're giving away the monitoring function to those very same companies.

[1550]

When you look at the Wildfire Act, again, it reduces the fire-abatement responsibility of persons actually carrying out industrial activity. The wording that is being changed in Bill 9 is…. The previous act stated that a "person carrying out an industrial activity or a prescribed activity must abate…a fire hazard of which the person is aware or ought reasonably to be aware." But Bill 9 now reads: "In prescribed circumstances, a person carrying out an industrial activity or prescribed activity must abate…a fire hazard that exists as a result of the industrial activity or prescribed activity."

Again, it's taking away responsibility from the operator and giving them the less responsibility on that. It's still looking after those big companies, because they've been dictated to by the industrial lobby in terms of the changes they're bringing back. What we've seen is a further giveaway. We saw in last May's budget and for three or four budgets before that the huge tax giveaway this government had given to the richest segment of our society and to large corporations. Then we saw the new Finance Minister, in her minibudget in September, give an unasked-for tax break of $500 million over four years to those very same entities — an unasked-for tax break.

Well, in this year's budget they didn't do an additional tax break to those large corporations. So what they've done is closed the front door and are shovelling it out the back door to those forest companies, in terms of removing their responsibilities that they have had for decades and putting them back onto the shoulders of the public in terms of the ministry.

But when we look at this, where is the protection for workers in this? There is no protection in here for workers. There is no protection in here for communities. Where is the protection of communities? Has the minister provided any protection for communities for their long-term sustainability? He hasn't done that in this act. Where is the protection for the public here? It isn't there. It's giving it all away again.

When you look at the obligations to first nations, where is the…? They've rejected the forest and range agreements that the minister had so touted in the last session, because it was handcuffing them. So they got a new ministry called Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Where is that reconciliation? Where is that building of relations? That's certainly not happening, and these amendments to these bills certainly don't do anything to help the lot of the aboriginal people, especially not in my riding.

Where is the responsibility and obligation to small business in here? They can't even get access to the waste that those large companies are leaving behind. Some of those forest companies are slashing and burning more of that wood lying there out in the field than the small operators use on an annual basis. It's a real shame, because some of that waste could be utilized by these small operators in terms of actually putting people to work in communities like Merritt, Princeton, Lytton and Lillooet and all of those forest-dependent communities across the province.

But this government refuses to recognize the problem it has created, and this bill does not address that. I'll be looking forward to the committee stage, when it

[ Page 3000 ]

comes up, to make sure we can put forward some amendments to the government so that it looks after the interests of all British Columbians like a responsible government is supposed to do — and not just for the rich and corporate entities in this province.

H. Bains: When I looked through the bill that was presented to us, I see nothing for the workers, nothing for the communities and nothing for the public of this province — as this government's responsibility is to deal with.

When the Forestry Revitalization Act was brought in originally, workers were worried. The communities were worried. When it was implemented, their fears came true. Sawmill closures after sawmill closures followed. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. They still haven't had the ability to go back to the forest industry that they spent almost all of their lives working in.

I spent almost all of my entire working life in the forest industry, and it was a good living. The local union that I represented, which I was a member of, in 2002 had 5,500 members.

[1555]

Today, thanks to the policies of this government and thanks to forest revitalization, they have less than 50 percent left working right now.

Under the previous act there was a responsibility on the licence holders to create jobs in the forest industry. They were to create stability in the communities, by creating jobs in logging and in manufacturing, for their right to access the public timber. I believe that was a good policy. The forest industry and the companies come in, and they have free access to the timber that belongs to the public of this province so that they can bring a good return for their shareholders. They can make a pretty good bottom line.

In return, the public of this province and the communities that are dependent on the forest industry benefited by having jobs in the forest industry created by those companies. It was a win-win situation.

But this government came in and decided that that wasn't good enough, that the forest industry needed more help from the government than the workers and the communities. That's exactly what they did. When they removed this responsibility, they argued that this was needed to be competitive in the world economy and in world markets. In return, the forest industry promised that they would be reinvesting in the industry if they were given all the changes they were asking for. This government basically asked the forest industry, "Write your own act, and we'll sign it" — and they did.

Did the investment come in? I haven't seen it. No one else has seen it. Very little, if any. In fact, what happened was that mills left this province — under the eyes of this Forests Minister — and went across the border and created jobs in another country. Millions of dollars were invested in the other country across the border, in the United States, rather than investing — as they promised to this minister — in this industry, in this province, to create jobs and bring stability to those communities and provide jobs to those workers.

It didn't happen. The minister said: "That's fine with us. Continue on with it. If you need more, we'll give you more." I think that's exactly what we're seeing in these amendments: more of the same.

Part of the Forestry Revitalization Act had a 20-percent clawback and takeback from the licence holders. Those workers who were to lose their jobs as a result of that 20 percent were promised they would be compensated in the way of severance packages. Again, this was designed to help the licence holders; there was no help for the workers in this.

The severance pay that was designed to be paid to the workers is paid to the employer, who otherwise would have paid the workers as a requirement under the collective agreement — again, help to the forest industry — but it wasn't designed to help the workers. Then it created a two-tier system — two different classes of those workers. People who were losing their jobs in the logging sector at least were given severance packages under that agreement, but workers who were losing their jobs in the sawmills as a result of that timber not being available to those sawmills were told: "You're out of luck.

You are not entitled to the same treatment that we are giving to the workers somewhere else." That was completely unfair.

[1600]

If the government's intention was to help the workers, they would have put those provisions in there — that if any worker was to lose their job as a result of the public policy of this government, they would be looked after, in addition to what they were entitled to in their collective agreements. That didn't happen. It was designed to help the licence holders, not to help the communities or the workers who live in those communities.

There are many other changes brought in, like cut control, as the member mentioned earlier. This clause was put in place for a very good reason. This clause was put in place to have continued viability of the communities that are dependent on the forest industry. During bad times the licence holders were required to cut 50 percent of their AAC to have some activity continue on in those smaller communities so that the gas pump worker, the gas pump owner, the grocery store and the other workers in the forest industry would have some activity. That's so the communities are not devastated as a result of the short-term downturn in the economy.

That has been removed now. What result followed from removal of this particular clause is that now the licence holder, over a five-year period, can decide to take not one log out of their area and leave that industry and that worker for two or three years without any employment. Then they can come in, in the last two years, and take everything they want, as long as they're within 10 percent of their AAC in that five-year period.

That is wrong. It has caused pain and hardship to the workers, and it has devastated the communities. All you have to do is just go out there in the north part of the Island. Many of these workers were my fellow workers. I worked with them. Many now live in my community of Surrey-Newton, and many of them don't

[ Page 3001 ]

have jobs anymore. When all of that was happening and they were losing their jobs, this government stood idly by, said nothing and did nothing to help those workers.

When all these changes were made, another very important part of the act was taken away: the authority of the minister to act during plant closures and ask for a review of the plant closure. Now, if the minister even wanted to ask the licence holder, the minister has no authority. They gave it away. They basically left the industry to do whatever it wanted to do, with no accountability from this government on behalf of the public. That is wrong, and I see nothing in these amendments that are being proposed to fix the problem.

With all those changes that I talked about and that the members before me talked about, they did not create a vibrant forest industry, as was promised. What it did was create winners and losers — winners and losers in the forest industry, winners and losers in the communities, workers in the communities lost by way of plant closures and by way of those layoffs. And who won out? The forest industry, which is actually asking for more from this minister to do more of the same that they did in the last two or three years.

I am very, very concerned. I am concerned that the minister and this government are abdicating their duty to the public, their duty to manage our public resources for the benefit of all people, every sector and every region of this province. They have failed to do that, and that is my concern. I hope that by going through the debate, clause by clause, I'll find something that is hopeful and that there is something for the workers and the communities in there.

[1605]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 9.

Bill 9 makes amendments to forest and range statutes, and any time you make changes to forestry, whether they are small or not, they can either help or hinder the industry. Finding the balance between the needs of many different groups is always going to be complicated. As a member who represents communities that are highly dependent upon forestry, it's something that I'm going to watch carefully.

From my perspective, I've been in a community that went through a difficult time with its mill when I was mayor. It is something that I've seen first hand in terms of how the community is affected. I, for one, feel very strongly that we need to be always cognizant of the people that have invested in the industry and to make sure, as much as we can as government, that we allow them to be successful. The success of any of the corporations that have invested in our communities is really important, and that is one part of the balance that we need to be very mindful of. These companies need to be successful if they are going to do the things that are important for communities.

But there are other things that need to be balanced as well, and that's the interests of workers and the interests of the community at large. One of the changes that has taken place over the last few years that I'm concerned about and feel was a mistake is the removal of the tying of the resource to milling in the communities. I think that that was a fundamental change and one that is worrisome.

In my area the health of the industry, as I say, is crucial. In pretty well each of the communities that I represent, the main employer will be a forestry corporation. In Kimberley, many people move each day to Skookumchuck and Canal Flats. You have in the Columbia Valley area the importance of Radium. Within Golden you have Louisiana Pacific's mill, and in Revelstoke you have Downey Street and a number of other smaller mills.

With these amendments, there are many things that you see that could make things easier for companies. If that is something that is done without compromising the interests of communities or employees or other groups, then it is a positive thing. I will definitely be looking forward to the committee stage as we go through each of the changes and have them explained by the minister, and I will be looking to see that these changes are useful to the manufacturers and the companies but also that they deal with the interests of the communities. As we move into the discussions around the changes that are proposed here, it's something that I'll watch carefully.

As I say, coming from a community that went through a transition, the impacts are dramatic. We were fortunate at the time to have a government that felt committed to communities and to making sure that there was support for the transition that was needed.

I would highlight at this time the tremendous work done by the job protection commissioner. That was an idea that came in during the Social Credit time, and the gentleman that was in place there is somebody still held in tremendous regard by the people of Golden. With government involvement, they made sure that a new manufacturing setup was put in place. From the corporations' point of view, there was perhaps a lack of interest in doing all of the things that government insisted that they do, but the outcome for the community has been very positive.

I look forward to the committee stage debate, and I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this.

[1610]

C. Trevena: Like my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, I live in a forest-dependent community. The health of the forest industry is extraordinarily important. We wouldn't have an economy in North Island if we didn't have forestry. It has been the health of the economy from day one. This is why I think we have to examine this bill very closely, because a lot of jobs rely on this, and a lot of the quality of life relies on the health of the industry.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have some concerns about the amendments being put forward. I'm looking forward to hearing in more

[ Page 3002 ]

detail what they're going to mean. My concerns are on how it's going to impact both the communities and the workers within those communities. I'm concerned about what the flexibility is going to be for the timber licences, because in my constituency nearly all of the timber licences, all the TFLs, are on Crown land. So there is the issue that I perceive of the social responsibility of the companies working on Crown land, working in our forests and having that responsibility and how that responsibility translates both in the cut and in the management of those lands. I do have that awareness as I look at these amendments and will be very interested to see what does happen there.

There has been a lot of concern about what has been happening in the industry in my constituency. There has been a concern that the companies are working without regulation, working without supervision. I hear this both from people who have been working in the industry for many, many years as well as people from very different interest groups who are concerned about what is happening. I hope these amendments will not allow for an increase in cut and an increased lack of supervision in the cut.

There are still issues that have not been resolved from the introduction of the forest and range act, and I don't see that these amendments do resolve some of those issues. I speak specifically here about the so-called takeback and the loss of jobs there. I think there is still a lot of concern. People who have taken redundancy and still have not been paid for this…. So I think that while we have new amendments here, we have a lot of unanswered questions still from the previous act.

This is still second reading. We have a lot to go through. We have a lot of discussion in the committee stage. I very much look forward to that, but I do hope that we are addressing these issues seriously and not just giving a free rein or a great deal of control away when we are in many instances talking about Crown lands, talking about our forests and our trees.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Forests and Range closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate the members' comments. However, I should let the members know that this is actually a small amendment act, and I don't think we're going to spend the next number of days on sections of

an act related to some of the questions that the members brought up.

I am absolutely shocked that the member for North Island, responsible for Port Alice, gets up and tells us how things are so bad in the forest sector when somebody's putting in $80 million to bring a pulp mill back on line in her riding. She doesn't even so much as acknowledge the fact that the investment's taking place for jobs in her riding. I find that absolutely shocking. The loggers, the truckers, the people that do the booming, the people that are going to run the mill are all going to be working, and all we hear is negative from the individual member from that particular riding.

I'm also shocked to hear from the member for Yale-Lillooet. The member for Yale-Lillooet should drive by the log area at the Weyerhaeuser mill in Princeton and go by the mill and timber and the mills in his own riding and his own community and see the logs that are sitting there. They're going to be milled over the next number of months, because there are lots of jobs in the forest sector in the interior of British Columbia.

I'm shocked, frankly, at the critic. The critic actually gets up and says: "In the legislation there's nothing to do for safety of forest workers in British Columbia."

[1615]

It's an amendment act. We have safe companies that we put together with the Forest Safety Council. We've done more in safety in the last six months in this province than was ever done in previous history. And do you know what? We did it for the right reasons.

For somebody to think that they can come in and write a piece of legislation in the paper and that it's going to change the activity and the behaviour on the ground without a cooperative relationship between companies, workers, WorkSafe B.C. and all the participants on the land base…. They're sitting there in some kind of Lalaland, not understanding the reality that safe workers and safe communities come from people working together on safe projects and the way we operate on the land base, not because somebody thinks we should put a

section in a piece of legislation.

I'm also shocked to hear the member for Surrey-Newton talking about the loss of jobs and the shutting down of companies and the loss of mills. Maybe that member should go look and find out this one little simple fact: more mills closed during the era of the NDP than have closed in the last number of years of this government. That's the same government who went to Prince George, stood on a dais with the Premier of the day and said: "We've got the jobs and timber accord. We're going to create 21,000 new jobs in forestry in British Columbia." Not one job was created, but 15,000 disappeared. You call that leadership in forestry and leadership in how to manage a resource? Not a chance.

This industry is in better shape than it was under this government and will be because we understand a number of things. There are costs. We understand the dollar — not even mentioned by the members across. We understand labour costs and finances and return on investment. We understand that we have to work collectively to build a long-term solution for forestry in British Columbia.

This is an amendment act. The real work is going on all the time. These members should maybe save for estimates debate the questions that they have brought up about the legislation. I'm looking forward to those debates, as I point out to them time and time and time again during their tenure of government where they failed forestry and forest workers in British Columbia….

Having said that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 3003 ]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. minister, you have to move second reading first.

Hon. R. Coleman: I did, at the beginning of my remarks, move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2006

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2 be read a second time.

Bill 2 amends seven provincial statutes to implement a number of the tax measures that were announced in Budget 2006. The tax measures in Bill 2 build on the many tax cuts government has introduced since 2001 to help strengthen the provincial economy and allow us to provide, in a sustainable way, the important services British Columbians require.

In 2001 we lowered British Columbia income taxes by an average of 25 percent. Families earning less than $30,000 a year saw their income taxes reduced by 28 percent. British Columbia now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada for the bottom two tax brackets. A year ago we went further, with nearly a half a billion dollars worth of tax and MSP premium reductions over three years for the province's lowest-income earners. Now most people earning up to $16,000 a year pay absolutely no provincial income tax at all.

We've also brought in a series of measures since 2001 to attract new investment and help business to grow. Over the last four provincial budgets government has taken great care to balance what we have done for the economy with what we have done for British Columbians and their families. This has meant ensuring a competitive tax system for business and a fair tax system for individuals. Bill 2 continues and builds on those principles, beginning with families.

[1620]

While soaring property values can ultimately be a benefit, they can also be a source of concern for many homeowners, especially families and seniors who simply want a place to live or raise their families. For many years the British Columbia homeowner grant has helped to keep home-ownership affordable. Bill 2 provides two enhancements to the homeowner grant program. The grant is increased by $100 for every eligible homeowner — the first increase since 1993. The basic grant is increased by 22 percent to $570 from $470. The higher grant for eligible seniors, veterans and the disabled is increased to $845 from $745.

Bill 2 also amends the Home Owner Grant Act to allow the phase-out threshold to be set by regulation. As announced in January, the threshold is raised to $780,000 this year so that approximately 95 percent of homeowners will continue to qualify for the full grant, benefiting up to 27,000 homeowners.

An amendment to the Income Tax Act provides a further benefit to families by doubling the amount of medical expenses that can be claimed for dependent relatives for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit.

Minor amendments are made to the Property Transfer Tax Act to improve fairness and clarify certain exemptions, including improvements to existing exemptions for transfers to and from the public guardian and trustee on behalf of minors to ensure that they enjoy the same tax benefits that are available to other British Columbians.

A new exemption for amalgamations of not-for-profit societies under the Society Act to parallel an existing exemption available now to for-profit corporations…. Improving the competitiveness and the fairness of the provincial tax system is an ongoing process. Several budget initiatives in this bill are designed to meet these important objectives.

Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act to extend the enhanced tax credits for domestic and foreign film productions to 2008. The film sector faces enormous competition for production locations, and extending the tax credits will provide industry with time to make required changes to improve its competitiveness.

An amendment to the Income Tax Act to extend the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit for another three years, to 2008, will also continue to encourage investment in mineral exploration in this province.

The increase in the vehicle surtax threshold from $49,000 to $55,000 will allow all British Columbians throughout the province, but particularly those in the north and in rural regions, to purchase the pickups and other sturdy vehicles they need for work without payment of the surtax. Similarly, amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act i