2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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 31, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Milton Wong

Hon. G. Hogg

Ed Macgregor

B. Kerr

Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Life-saving award recipients

R. Lee

Sandy Merriman House

J. Bray

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Emergency care availability and handling of SARS cases

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Independent power project proposals

D. Chutter

Hon. R. Neufeld

Forests ministry recreation site management contracts

J. Wilson

Hon. J. Murray

Sex offenders registry

B. Locke

Hon. R. Coleman

Home invasions

T. Bhullar

Hon. R. Coleman

Review of ICBC c.a.r. shop program

B. Suffredine

Hon. G. Collins

Point of Privilege

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

P. Nettleton

Point of Privilege

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

W. Cobb

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

W. Cobb

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

Royal Assent to Bills

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

S. Orr

Hon. G. Hogg

L. Mayencourt

J. Nuraney

R. Nijjar

B. Locke

R. Lee

Hon. L. Reid

E. Brenzinger

B. Suffredine

J. Bray

R. Sultan

I. Chong

W. McMahon

S. Brice

V. Anderson

[ Page 5741 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I had the privilege today of presenting the Queen's Golden Jubilee

medal to two civil servants in the Ministry of Education. As you know, Her

Majesty represents the highest ideals of community service and public service,

as do the two individuals I was able to present this award to today.

[1405]

While

they've been singled out for their tremendous service over the years, they are

just two civil servants amongst many, many at the Ministry of Education who've

devoted much of their lives, energy and passion to making sure our education

system is the best in the world.

I'm

delighted to be able to introduce all of you to them today. In our gallery we

have with us Peter Owen, from the Ministry of Education, and Heather Walker as

well. I hope the House will make them welcome.

P. Wong:

Joining us in the House today are Ms. Marita Luk, the business development

Would the House please make them most welcome.

Tributes

MILTON WONG

Hon. G.

Hogg: Last week, the week of March 24, was Social Work Week in British

Columbia, and we, through that week, celebrate the sacrifices and contributions

that social workers make across this province. The Premier and I had the

privilege last Friday of making one person an honorary social worker. That

person is Milton Wong, the chancellor of Simon Fraser University, who is now an

honorary social worker. I would ask the House to extend our congratulations to

him for the work that he's done on behalf of the people of this province.

Introductions by Members

Brenzinger: Today in the House I have joining me two young gentlemen from my

riding of Surrey-Whalley. I have Rick Kraushar and Rudolf Sokolovski. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MacPhail: I have two introductions to make this afternoon. First, we are

joined by a couple of concerned IWA members in the gallery today, Darol Smith

and Gary Kobayashi. Would the House please make them welcome.

Then two

young post-secondary students from Malaspina College, Margo Dolling and Josh

Dolling. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Cobb:

Mine is not an introduction, but a recognition. For the first time in the

50-year history of minor hockey in one of my communities, a Williams Lake team

has won the B.C. hockey title. The Williams Lake McDonald's midget Broncos

captured the B.C. AAA rep minor hockey crown at the seven-team provincial

championship playoffs.

The

Williams Lake boys, coached by Sid Davis and Jason Smart, compiled a five-win,

one-tie and one-loss record at the Kelowna tournament against Kamloops — 4 to

2. The Williams Lake squad will now represent B.C. in the B.C.–Alberta

regional Air Canada Cup. The best-of-three series will be played against a

Calgary team in Williams Lake this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Please join me

in congratulating them and wishing them well this weekend.

Tributes

ED MACGREGOR

B. Kerr:

It's with sadness that I announce the passing of Sooke's first and only

mayor. Ed Macgregor was a tremendous administrator as he guided Sooke through

its incorporation process, and then as mayor for two terms taking it through the

growing pains of being a new municipality.

One thing

that Ed Macgregor was not: he was not pretentious. Ed would be just as

comfortable or probably more comfortable in his cutoffs and T-shirt working in

his garden than wearing a jacket and tie. Ed is going to be dearly missed by his

community, and our condolences go his wife, Linda, and his family.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I want to join with the member in paying tribute to Ed Macgregor, as

the minister responsible for municipal affairs in the province. I had the

pleasure of meeting Ed on several occasions. He was a very fine gentleman and a

tireless champion for his community. He'll be very much missed by everyone in

the municipality affairs realm, as well as in his own community obviously.

Again, we mourn his passing.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Hogg: Consistent with my practice of reporting on basketball excellence in

this House, last week I reported on the fact that White Rock Christian and Earl

Marriott Secondary won the provincial basketball championship.

This week's

report is from the provincial master's basketball tournament, a championship

held in Abbotsford this past weekend, where a Victoria team performed well above

their potential and came home with a sixth-place finish in the C division.

[1410]

This gritty

group was led by the legendary, lanky and loquacious Les Leyne. Would the House

please join me in extending congratulations to this group who exceeded all

expectations and finished….

Mayencourt: I was just looking up in the gallery, and I noticed that a very

good friend, Wilf Hurd, is

[ Page 5742 ]

here in the House — a former member of this Legislature. Would the House

please make him welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Many members will know that there was a terrible tragedy in my

community of Cloverdale last week. Four young people died, and one was

critically injured in a horrible motor vehicle accident. Having attended the

memorial service for one of the young people over the weekend, I can tell the

House that this tragedy has deeply affected not only the family, friends and

classmates of these young people but the entire community of Cloverdale.

I would ask

that the Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, please send a message

of condolence to all the families of the young people involved in this tragic

accident.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) LIFE-SAVING AWARD RECIPIENTS

R. Lee:

Last Saturday I had the honour to participate in the ninety-first annual

Commonwealth honour and rescue awards ceremony at the Hotel Vancouver. I brought

greetings from the Premier to welcome the recipients and guests.

This year

many members of the Lifesaving Society of Canada, B.C. and Yukon Branch, have

received the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for their contributions and

achievements benefiting their fellow citizens and community. Recipients of the

medal included Jon MacKinnon, branch governor, and Jean Lathwell, who began her

volunteer involvement with the Lifesaving Society in 1944.

Again, we

heard many meritorious actions of British Columbians in saving lives. For

example, Vernon Botkin saved the lives of two young motorists from a

water-filled Richmond ditch. Jeff Chapman and Keith Sterling-Pither saved Keith

Fuller from his partially submerged boat off Port Renfrew. David Davis pulled a

man without a life jacket off the water near Gonzales Bay, and Jack Macdonald

brought a little girl's — Char Cook's — life back when vacationing in

Christopher Lake, Saskatchewan.

Other

rescues involving significant acts of bravery over the past year included a

group of students and their teacher Alyson King and parent Bill Balakshin from

the Chilliwack Middle School at Stave Lake; Doug Bray at Hemlock Valley; Kelli

Deering in Smithers; Beckie Harcourt on Pender Island, Reginald Lehman and John

Mayr at Three Valley Gap Lake, and Alishia Muehlfarth at Waterfront Park,

Burrard Inlet.

Many of

these people put their lives in danger. Their heroic and selfless action is an

inspiration to us. Would the House join me to honour the life-saving actions and

services of these outstanding British Columbians.

SANDY MERRIMAN HOUSE

J. Bray:

Today I would like to advise this House and my constituents about recent

developments concerning a vital service in my community: Sandy Merriman House.

Sandy Merriman House is a hostel facility for women operated through the

Victoria Cool Aid Society since 1997. Sandy Merriman House operates as a shelter

hostel for women in crisis. Women also receive two meals, access to shower

facilities and laundry service and access to telephones, etc., and, most

importantly, a safe place with caring staff that understand the needs of the

women who use this facility.

Until

November of last year Sandy Merriman was also open during the day as a drop-in

centre for women to come in for information, support, a warm cup of coffee and a

safe haven from the streets. In the fall Cool Aid was not successful in its

contract application to continue the day program, and thus Sandy Merriman House

was only open from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. Concurrently, the city of Victoria,

Vancouver Island health authority and Victoria city police issued a joint

strategy on how to deal with illicit drug use, homelessness and mental health as

it pertains to our community.

[1415]

I have

spoken in this House about the cooperation among the local authorities to

deliver immediate as well as long-term solutions and the need for the provincial

government to partner in these solutions. My Victoria-area colleagues and I have

continued to work with ministers to ensure that we do our part to support this

collaborative approach. Earlier the province contributed funding to assist in

the needle pickup and disposal program.

I have also

spoken about the need for a safe place for women at risk. Some of those that

were caught in the downtown situation were clients of Sandy Merriman House. This

is why I'm so pleased that in bringing Cool Aid together with Ministry of Human

Resources staff, funding is now available through June 2003 to once again offer

the day program at Sandy Merriman. This safe haven for women will again be open

24 hours a day and will provide another provincial contribution to the Victoria

downtown strategy. By working together, we can make a difference for our

communities.

B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Mayencourt: Friday was a historic day here in British Columbia, when I

attended the Attorney General's announcement regarding the new Human Rights

Tribunal. This fresh initiative by our government will begin a new era in

British Columbia human rights and how cases are handled. The new model will

focus on mediation and resolution and will promote education and greater access

to information. As of this morning a single body will handle all human rights

complaints from start to finish.

The human

and to help

[ Page 5743 ]

make its processes and procedures clearer. They have created a system that is

straightforward and easy to understand. As the Attorney General stated, not all

human rights cases are the same, but each person equally deserves to be treated

fairly and with dignity and respect. The tribunal will now be able to

effectively monitor each case accordingly and help people solve their problems

in a speedy and efficient manner. Legal support will be available to those who

need assistance through a clinic run jointly by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition

and the Community Legal Assistance Society. It's important that every individual

fully understands the process involved in a human rights complaint, and this

initiative will achieve that.

Another

important aspect of this system is the emphasis on education. Our government has

taken on the important role of educating employers, employees and the general

public regarding the Human Rights Code. Education is our most effective tool in

making the code a success.

That we

require a human rights tribunal is an unfortunate fact in our society today.

Each of us needs to champion human rights and provide services to those that

need them in a timely, affordable and practical manner.

conclusion, this is a step forward for all British Columbians, because they will

know that this government respects every individual's right to receive fair

treatment and find justice. I congratulate the Attorney General and all those

involved with Friday's announcement for launching this important initiative.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY CARE AVAILABILITY

AND HANDLING OF SARS CASES

MacPhail: Last week a young man died while physicians at Mission Memorial

Hospital scrambled to find him an intensive care unit bed. The young man

couldn't be treated at Mission Memorial Hospital because its emergency services

had been severely cut back by this government. It took over three hours for

doctors to find him an ICU bed. By that time, it was too late, and the coroner

is now investigating.

Can the

Minister of Health Services tell this House what additional steps he is taking

to investigate this tragic event, and will he now share with the House whether

he thinks that shutting down emergency services in major population centres like

Mission may have been a serious mistake?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I certainly share the member's concern for this very tragic

situation. I think it was very difficult for any of us to relate to the loss of

a son or a daughter, especially a young person being taken in tragic

circumstances.

I can

assure the member that in this circumstance it really had nothing to do with the

ICU. It was not an ICU that this young man needed in that circumstance but

rather a trauma care, and the efforts…. The Mission Memorial Hospital has

never had trauma care, so that would not have been a factor at all.

I can also

assure the member that there is 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week emergency room

coverage with physicians there. That has not been decreased, as the member

implied in her question. Certainly, the health authority is working closely with

the coroner. There will be full cooperation, and we will welcome a thorough

review of the efforts that were made to save this young man's life. If there is

anything to be learned from the report of the coroner's inquiry…. We will

certainly ensure that those measures get implemented, if there are

recommendations.

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I assume that, like me, the Minister of Health Services will await

the coroner's report before reaching any conclusions.

Mission

Memorial Hospital is just one of the many hospitals in the lower mainland and

around the province that have had their emergency care, trauma care and acute

care facilities cut back by this government. In the Fraser health authority

alone, up to 335 acute care beds are now being cut. Doctors, as of this weekend,

are raising the alarm about the possible effects this might have on treating a

potential epidemic like SARS. Today Dr. Tom Koch, of Simon Fraser University,

says that B.C. will be unable to handle a similar outbreak of SARS like the one

that's occurring in Ontario.

Again to

the Minister of Health Services or the Minister of Health Planning: what

assurances can either of them provide to British Columbians that B.C. is

prepared to handle a SARS outbreak despite these severe cuts to emergency care,

acute care and trauma care?

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, I would like to point out that there has been no

reduction in trauma care in the province. We have centres of specialization in

trauma care in the province, and indeed those are being strengthened around the

province. The member should know from her time as Minister of Health in this

province that the demand for the number of acute care beds is dropping

considerably — and during the time she was minister, the number of acute care

beds in this province dropped — because so many more procedures are being done

as a result of day surgery.

When it

comes to the SARS epidemic, I read the letter to the editor this morning by Tom

Koch, and quite frankly, he's totally wrong. He's totally off base. We in

British Columbia, with the health professionals we have, have done an absolutely

first-class job of dealing with this challenge that has come to the health care

system of British Columbia.

I am

extremely proud of the work that was done by the front-line workers at Vancouver

General Hospital when they had the first case put into isolation so quickly. I

am extremely proud of the work that is being done by our medical health officers

and our provincial

[ Page 5744 ]

health officer. I am extremely proud of the work that's being done at the

Centre for Disease Control.

It is a

challenge, and we are trying to deal with it in a very deliberate way. It's

certainly one of the highest priorities that we have in the system today. I am

also fully confident that our acute care system in British Columbia is better

able to deal with this challenge than almost any other province in Canada.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a second supplementary question.

MacPhail: There's no question, as the minister says, that the B.C. Centre

for Disease Control has done an admirable job of containing the spread of SARS

so far. I'm not quite sure why the minister feels it's necessary to attack Dr.

Koch. The point he was making is about the capacity of the health system to cope

with an epidemic once an outbreak has occurred. Dr. Koch points out that as a

result of acute care bed cuts, which is a reality, it's much more difficult to

transfer patients between facilities — whether it be a trauma bed or an acute

care bed. That was the situation that faced the tragic circumstances of the man

in Mission. The capacity to transfer between facilities is essential when faced

with an epidemic. It's what Ontario is faced with right now.

Everywhere

I went this weekend, British Columbians are concerned about the recent outbreak

of SARS. They want assurances from the government that the government has made

allowances for all circumstances, including a huge number of emergency

admissions to hospitals. They want assurances that emergency room care will be

there even when there's reduced capacity.

All I'm

asking the minister for is information. I think that was the tenor of Dr. Koch's

letter as well. Can he table the government's analysis of the effect of

emergency room changes and acute care bed changes on the province's preparedness

for the outbreak of an epidemic like SARS? It is nowhere to be found in

information yet.

[1425]

Hon.

C. Hansen: The redesign of the health care system that we announced a year

ago this month was all about building a network of care. It was something that

has never happened before in this province, where you actually can have

emergency rooms in hospitals communicating with each other in a very effective

way, and where we have an ambulance service that is actually properly trained to

deal with the kind of transfers that the member is talking about. For the first

time we're actually getting paramedics trained up to a level to deal with a lot

of those kind of circumstances.

I can give

the member 100 percent assurance that everything is being done that needs to be

done to make sure that our hospitals and our acute care system are ready to deal

with any eventuality and any kind of emergencies they might be faced with.

INDEPENDENT POWER

PROJECT PROPOSALS

Chutter: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. In my riding

there are very good opportunities for independent power producers to set up

clean power projects. Capitalizing on this potential would create jobs for my

constituents and economic growth. Last December B.C. Hydro committed to

releasing a list of qualified and eligible bidders by February or March. It is

now the end of March, and a list has yet to be made available.

Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines now provide that list or update the House on the

status of the bidding process?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes. Our energy plan that we released last year said we were going

to depend on the independent power producers to provide the incremental growth

going forward. In that vein B.C. Hydro called for generation, some 800

megawatt-hours, last fall. It was oversubscribed by seven times — 5,500

gigawatt-hours of electricity. B.C. Hydro has narrowed that to 30 proposals,

which will now move forward into some better planning stages. It's still about

3,300 gigawatt-hours and will hopefully be awarded by the end of the fall —

sometime in September or October. The project should be in commercial operation

by September of 2006.

FORESTS MINISTRY RECREATION SITE

MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I've recently heard from a constituent who is quite concerned that the contracts

for recreational sites in the provincial parks will not be settled in time for

the upcoming tourist season. Specifically, I refer to the Ten Mile Lake

Provincial Park just north of Quesnel. This park is a great asset and hosts a

number of activities for both residents and tourists.

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection comment on the status of the RFP

procedure for park services and tell us if the contracts will be in place for

the rapidly approaching tourist season?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm happy to report to the House that the request-for-proposals

process is going very well. We will have qualified operators in our parks and

our campgrounds for the camping season, and that includes Ten Mile Provincial

Park.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a supplementary question.

Wilson: As I understand it, a contractor does not simply bid on a single

park, but rather they bid on a series of park contracts. However, Bowron Lake

Park is being treated differently. It has been left out of the package process.

[ Page 5745 ]

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us why Bowron Lake Park has been

left out of this process, and how will this affect the RFP process?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Bowron Lake Provincial Park is being treated as its own bundle,

and that's related to the size of the park, the number of day-use and camping

areas, and the very special canoe trip circuit in Bowron Lake Provincial Park

that requires specialized service. I can assure the member that this park also

will have a qualified operator in place in time for the camping season.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. The federal government has

committed to a sex offender registry. My concern is that the registry does not

include offenders that are currently serving sentences or those that have been

released into the public. My constituents have expressed concern that this makes

the registry almost ineffective.

[1430]

How

effective will a registry be without people like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson

on it? Can the Solicitor tell my constituents what his office is doing to

encourage the federal government to make the sex offender registry retroactive?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the member knows, last year the federal government announced

that they would be doing enhancements to CPIC which would include a sex offender

registry. At that time we made it very clear that there were a number of things

we wanted this registry to be able to do — basically, the search ability of

the engine that we would be using on the system; that we would have photo

capability and that we would have geomapping. We think that we can also

incorporate those areas into PRIME to actually deal with it in British Columbia.

One of the

issues that's on the table and that we've made very clear, as have Alberta and

Ontario, is that retroactivity has to be part of the sex offender registry. We

want everyone that is a sex offender retroactively put on the registry for the

protection of our communities.

HOME INVASIONS

Bhullar: Given the rash of home invasions that have taken place in the lower

mainland, can the Solicitor General tell the House precisely the operational

plans that law enforcement agencies have put into place to combat home invasions

so that seniors can feel safe in their homes?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Law enforcement continuously has strategic plans that they're

working on with regard to any movement of crime or information or difficulties

with crime. As the member knows, there were a number of rewards put up with

regard to home invasions a couple of years ago. It had some minimal effect on

the issue. It seemed to die off when we were able to actually catch some of the

people with regard to it.

The bottom

line, though, for crime is that the big step that law enforcement needs is what

is before this House today: the bill with regard to PRIME-BC. The ability to

actually track crime and track people and move that information seamlessly

across jurisdictions in order to fight crime is the absolutely important tool

that you can give to law enforcement today. It's the most strategic tool we

could probably give to law enforcement with regard to any of these issues. In

addition to that, we are looking at how we can regionalize and manage our

policing and our movement of personnel relative to crime statistics across the

region better, which we're doing with some formulas and plans that we're putting

into place with both the RCMP and our municipal police forces.

REVIEW OF ICBC C.A.R. SHOP PROGRAM

Suffredine: Last year the Minister of Finance announced a review of ICBC

c.a.r. shop accreditation. To become accredited, ICBC requires businesses to

meet certain requirements before it guarantees them work. Many of these

requirements have little or nothing to do with quality of service, the skill of

the employees or safety in the workplace. They are things like the size of the

waiting area or the number of parking stalls.

Government

should not be deciding where people get their cars fixed. That's a consumer

choice. To the Minister of Finance: when will this review be complete, and what

can we expect from it?

Hon. G.

Collins: I want to thank members who brought that issue to my attention both

prior to the election and since the election, when I've had responsibility for

ICBC. It was very clear to me and, as well, other members of the House that the

c.a.r. shop program, as put in place by ICBC, was overly bureaucratic and overly

prescriptive and left very little for the consumer to decide in choosing where

they wanted to go.

We asked

ICBC to do a review of the c.a.r. shop program, keeping in mind our goal of

deregulation and reducing the burden on people. I'm pleased to say that ICBC has

completed that process and that many of the items causing concern to businesses

— i.e., a prescription on what their hours of business needed to be, the

number of parking stalls, whether they had toilet paper in the washroom, whether

they had such-and-such a size of waiting room — have all been taken out.

As well,

any regulations that were over and above or in conflict with some of the other

regulations they operate under relative to the Workers Compensation Board, for

example, have been streamlined. ICBC is now accepting new applications for the

c.a.r. shop program as well as working, as a priority, on the backlog that

exists.

I'm also

pleased to say that they've reduced the renewable annual fee for the c.a.r. shop

program from

[ Page 5746 ]

$750 to $150 and have also reduced the fee for the initial applications from

$750 to $470. I think that's good news to all those people trying to operate

their small businesses across the province.

[1435]

[End

of question period.]

Point of Privilege

MacPhail: This morning I rose to give notice of my intent to raise a point

of privilege. I rise now on that matter, of which written notice has been given

to the Chair under standing order 26, practice recommendation 7, to put to you

that there is a prima facie case that the Minister of Forests is in contempt of

this House.

I offer up

as evidence the following: the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability

Act, which states under the heading, "Payment of 1/2 of holdback for

achieving individual responsibilities,"

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

section 3, for any period in a

fiscal year when a member of the Executive Council was responsible for

operating expenses other than of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, becomes

due and payable to that member on the next day after the public accounts for

that fiscal year are made public, if the actual amount of those operating

expenses does not exceed the estimated amount of those operating expenses for

that fiscal year in the main estimates."

The

second

part I offer to you is the Hansard of my exchange with the

Minister of Finance on March 5, 2003, wherein he anticipates that the

additional expenditure of $275 million, provided for in Bill 28, the Forestry

Revitalization Act, will put the Minister of Forests well over budget for

2002-03.

I also

offer to you Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, which states under the

heading, "Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act":

"11 For the purposes of sections 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the Balanced

Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act in relation to the Minister of

Forests for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the estimated amount under

section 6

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

(

a) for the operating expenses for which that

minister is responsible in the main estimates for that fiscal year, and

(

b) under sections 9 and 10 (4) of this Act."

Sections 9

and 10(4) refer to the total of $275 million in expenditures. This

section 11

says that the Minister of Forests will get his 10 percent takeback because this

bill exempts that ministerial expenditure from holding him accountable under the

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

On March 26

the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman — the Minister of Forests — rose in

his place, introduced and moved first reading for Bill 28, the Forestry

Revitalization Act, which was then placed on the order paper in his name. On

March 27 the Minister of Forests again rose in his place and presented his bill

for second reading. At the conclusion of that debate the Minister of Forests

voted in its favour. Today, March 31, we are advised by the Government House

Leader that the first and primary order of business to be called just moments

from now is committee stage on Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, and

again the Minister of Forests will be taking the lead on his own bill.

[1440]

Section 11

of Bill 28, should it pass, will not change the bottom line for government. It

will not impact on how the ministers in general will be compensated under the

scheme of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

Section 11 of

Bill 28, if passed, will grant the Minister of Forests, the very sponsor and

quarterback of this bill, the sole and unique benefit of a financial gain — a

financial reward worth 10 percent of his ministerial stipend — approximately

$4,000 directly into his own pocket.

I encourage

members of this House to consult the Members' Conflict of Interest Act,

section

2, for a definition of conflict of interest, which reads as follows: "

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a member has a conflict of interest when the

member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in

the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the

performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the

opportunity to further his or her private interest." It's the end of the

act.

I also

assume that all members are familiar with

section 3 of that act, which states:

"A member must not exercise an official power or perform an official duty

or function if the member has a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of

interest." Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests gained a personal benefit,

a unique benefit, as a result of Bill 28, and he stood in this House and voted

in favour of that.

I now turn

to the question of contempt and offer select references on the matter, including

the following.

1. MacMinn,

third edition, 1997, who notes under Standing Order 26, which identifies the

collective privileges of the Members of the Legislative Assembly to include the

power to punish for contempt.

2. Maingot,

second edition, 1997, and specifically under the heading of "Contempt of

Parliament," the following: "…one of the corporate privileges of the

House is the power to punish for contempt." And further, I continue to

quote: "…there is no restriction on what may constitute a 'contempt of

parliament."' It goes on to offer some description of what might constitute

a contempt, as:

"…w hen,

by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the

authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that

person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or the

Senate, as the case may be; t herefore, it will be seen that the

Senate and the House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions

that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are

offences against their authority or dignity."

3. Erskine

May, editions 19, 20, 21 and 22, under the title of "Contempts":

"On June 22, 1858, the House of Commons resolved 'that it is contrary to

the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its members

should bring forward, promote or advocate

[ Page 5747 ]

in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been

concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.'"

4. Finally,

I will recommend to you the report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of a

Member, House of Commons, December 18, 1940, which found that even though the

evidence might have been inconclusive as to the expectations of pecuniary

benefit, the conduct of the member in question was still "contrary to the

usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House, and inconsistent with the

standards which parliament is entitled to expect from its members."

This House

has not ceded its authority to find one of its members in conflict. Indeed, as

members will know, any penalties recommended under

section 21 of the Members'

Conflict of Interest Act must be approved by this House as the ultimate

authority. But no one, other than this House, has the authority to determine and

punish a contempt against it.

[1445]

The

evidence is irrefutable that the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman and

Minister of Forests has — by sponsoring, defending in debate and voting in

favour of Bill 28 — sought to derive a financial benefit. His conduct was

disrespectful of the authority and lawful commands of the Legislative Assembly.

It was also an assault on its dignity and inconsistent with the standards which

the Legislative Assembly is entitled to expect from its members.

I thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and submit to you, if I may, a motion. This

is a motion that I am prepared to call should you find a prima facie case for

contempt. I also seek your advice on the propriety of the bill in question, Bill

28, proceeding as it appears on the order paper under the name of the Minister

of Forests while the matter weighs upon your mind. I also seek your advice,

should you find a prima facie case, whether that bill should proceed at all

until the responsible committee has reported back to this House.

Hon. G.

Collins: First, I want to reserve my right to raise other matters on this

issue, because I have not had the same time to go back and canvass the 1858 and

other references, so I'd like to take my opportunity to reserve my right to do

that. On the surface, however, I think the member has created a fairly elaborate

superstructure with not much in it.

We have in

existence in the province of British Columbia something called the Members'

Conflict of Interest Act, which was passed, according to my recollection,

somewhat after 1858. It was passed in this Legislature, and it deals with

potential conflicts that members may or may not have. I can only assume the

member opposite is aware of it as well, because she refers to it in her

presentation.

The

Conflict of Interest Act lays out a number of things where a member can be held

in conflict for raising matters or voting on matters where they have an

individual interest. However, this House, both in passing and voting upon the

initial Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — all members in

this House — voted in favour of it. I think two members voted against it, but

other members voted in favour of it. Those members sitting in the cabinet, if

the member's argument were to stand, would have been in breach of the Conflict

of Interest Act at the time that that item was raised, debated and voted upon in

this House. I believe I would have been as well. I think I was the sponsoring

minister, to use the same reference that the member opposite raises. So I

clearly would have been in conflict of interest.

Also, every

year, when this House votes on vote 1, members vote in favour of their own

salaries. If they were to not vote on that or to vote and amend it somehow, they

would in fact be impacting their income. As well, there is

an act that has

passed this House previously, the Members of the Legislative Assembly Allowance

and…. I can't remember what it's called. It has to do with our allowances, our

pensions, etc. — privileges which all members in this House voted upon. And I

do recall seeing responses from the conflict-of-interest commissioner to various

members of the public who have written to the conflict-of-interest commissioner

at various times alleging that members voting on their own remuneration was a

matter of conflict and him being clear that that was, in fact, not the case.

There's no one else who can vote on it; there's no one else who can bring it up;

there's no one else who can debate it. It is the one area where members are

entitled to and required to, in fact, vote.

Good. Thank

you for the quick legislative work of my colleague here. I refer to the Members'

Conflict of Interest Act, the definition section, where it states: "Private

interest does not include an interest arising from the exercise of an official

power or the performance of an official duty or function that applies to the

general public, affects the member as one of a broad class of electors, or

concerns the remuneration and benefits of a member or an officer or an employee

of the Legislative Assembly."

MacPhail: Broad class.

[1450]

Hon. G.

Collins: Yes, I understand what the member is saying, but she should have

taken her research perhaps one step further to subsection (

c) before she started

her victory dance.

There have

been a number of cases where members have to and in the past have been required

to vote upon their remuneration, the benefits that they receive and the pensions

that they receive. I know that member stood in this House and voted on matters

that relate to remuneration and pensions, because she and I sat in the same

House and have been elected for pretty much the same time.

It is an

interesting superstructure that she has created. It has lots of references, but

it fails to, I think, deal with the one that is definitive, and this House has

already spoken. It has said that when members are dealing with their personal

remuneration, it is not a matter of privilege. It's very clear. It's in

section

1 of the Con-

[ Page 5748 ]

flict Of Interest Act. It is the most current reference on that regard. This

House has chosen to direct its affairs in that way, and clearly it is not a

contempt of the House or a contempt of parliament if parliament is dealing in

the exact context of the legislation it passed not that terribly long ago.

Mr.

Speaker: Just one moment, please. The Government House Leader has reserved

his right to respond further to this motion of privilege — later today, I

would urge. I would hear one argument only from the government side and one from

the opposition side. The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor again.

MacPhail: Regardless of that, there is the issue that this government plans

to pass this legislation today, so there are unique circumstances that face us

in this chamber about this matter. Therefore, perhaps the Speaker could see his

way to have a recess.

Mr.

Speaker: If you just take your seat for one moment, I was going to deal with

that. The matter of privilege does not go to the validity of the bill. It

addresses one aspect of the bill, and that is the role of the minister and the

role he has played in the progress through this House. So the bill is valid, and

if it is the Government House Leader's wish, it can proceed to the next stage,

which is committee.

I will hear

the Government House Leader's further argument later today, and then in due

course we'll rule on the point of privilege, which I might add is very detailed

and well researched. I thank the member for that. It's a very complex issue

which will take some time to come back with an answer.

We'll leave

it at that and proceed with the orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal

and Women's Services. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for

consideration of Bill 28.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTRY REVITALIZATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:53 p.m.

The

committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: We're going to spend some time on this section, because this is a

very important part of the Forestry Revitalization Act, Bill 28. I'll read

section 2 into the record. It's entitled "Harvesting rights reduced for

timber licences and certain replaceable licences."

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

the

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

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

( 3) The total of the allowable annual cuts of the

licences in a group of licences listed in an item of the

Schedule is reduced

by the amount specified in Column 3 of that item opposite the group name,

assigned in Column 1, under which the licences are listed."

I have

referred in my questions in shorthand, as this is the

section that deals with 20

percent takeback of tenure. From my reading of the legislation, this applies to

forest tenures in excess of 200,000 acres. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There is a threshold, but for the member's information, the unit of

measurement is cubic metres, not acres or hectares.

MacPhail: Is the threshold, then, 200,000 cubic metres?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is correct.

[1510]

MacPhail: Can the minister please tell us what areas of the province will

see the greatest impact from this takeback?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The cumulative volume affected is about 8.3 million cubic metres.

The rough breakdown on that is 2.6 million cubic metres on the coast and 5.7

million cubic metres in the interior.

MacPhail: Yes, and therefore I'm interested in the breakdown amongst that.

What licences will be affected and by how much, please?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The best answer I think I can give is on a licence-by-licence basis

— that is, as set out in the schedule.

MacPhail: It is interesting that the…. Is the

schedule the one that the

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

schedule lists a number of companies in column 1. Column 2 has the licensing

number. Column 3 has the allowable annual cut for each of those companies. Then

for the ones that have more than one location — for instance, Canfor, which

has 15 licence numbers — column 3, the allowable annual cut, is blank.

Perhaps the

minister could be a little more specific because the

schedule doesn't tell me

anything on what it means. For instance, in looking at the schedule, item

[ Page 5749 ]

5, Canfor Group, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., A19208…. That's a licence

number. Why is it broken out like that? Perhaps the minister could describe why

it's broken out.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The licences that are listed — and we'll take the Canfor example

— are all of those licences which, under the definition and the terms of this

act, are subject to the 20 percent takeback. The number that the member sees

immediately to the right of the word Canfor — the 1556012 — is the

cumulative total not of all of these licences but of the volume that would be

taken back after applying the 20 percent above the 200,000 threshold that

Canfor, as an entity, enjoys along with all other licensees.

MacPhail: It could have been because I was in the hallway, but did the

minister introduce his staff? If he didn't, if he wouldn't mind….

Hon. M.

de Jong: Don Wright, the deputy, is on my right. Julian Paine is on my left,

and behind me is Richard Grieve from the Forest Service.

MacPhail: Is there a mill attached to each one of these licences of Canfor?

Hon. M.

de Jong: No.

MacPhail: Well, is the government then going to just take 20 percent off…?

Is the 1.556 million cubic metres takeback for Canfor going to be divided by 15?

[1515]

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is a fair and appropriate question. The answer goes like this.

We had a choice, having decided to go down this path of a reallocation. One of

the options was to simply apply 20 percent to each of the licences. In fact,

what we are trying to do is secure a maximum amount of flexibility, both for the

Crown and indeed for the operators.

We need a

representative selection of volume in terms of species and in terms of

geography, recognizing what our objectives are as they relate to communities,

first nations, woodlots. Therefore it is not inconceivable — and I'm not sure

Canfor is the best example to apply this to — that in a particular case the

Crown and a licensee might, for example, agree to the surrender or reallocation

of an entire licence as opposed to simply 20 percent.

What the

schedule points out is what, at the end of the day, must be satisfied — the

1.55 million cubic metres, in this case, from Canfor.

MacPhail: I don't want to in any way to suggest that I'm singling out any

company by referring to a particular company out of a particular column. I'm

just using the various names listed in the legislation to demonstrate the basis

from which I'm asking my point.

When is

this going to be determined? What are the rules to set up for determining this?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The act stipulates, in a

section we have not yet arrived at, that

that selection process negotiation will take place over the next three years.

MacPhail: I'm being advised to read the bill. I want to assure everybody

that I've read the bill. But the fact of the matter is that this legislation is

going to be rammed through tonight. What we're really legislating is

negotiation, and there are thousands of people's lives affected by this bill and

the consequences of this bill.

What I'm

asking the minister is: how will the negotiations work? What has he got planned

the minute this bill is passed?

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member, I was not being….

MacPhail: No, it wasn't you.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member, I feel her pain. I am regularly subjected to a

similar exercise. What I know is happening on the part of government, as we move

through the implementation of this statutory regime, is a process by which we

analyze — given our understanding of where the licences have been attributed

— our needs as they relate to the objectives. They're very much part of this

overall reform agenda.

Where is it

that we require volumes to deal with first nations on a geographic basis? Where

is it, and from a selection point of view and representative sampling point of

view…? What is it we need to auction to ensure that we have credible and

reliable data to drive a market-based timber pricing regime? Where is it that

there is interest in the expansion of a woodlot program?

[1520]

From the

Crown's point of view, we are in the midst now — in the early stages,

admittedly — of developing an inventory of needs as they relate to the 26

various licence groups listed here. For their part, having now examined the

blueprint that this legislation represents and based on discussions that will

take place commencing shortly, licensees will be doing the same. I think there

will be a pretty healthy discussion. I think I can also say, honestly, that it's

the kind of thing I wish could be done more quickly, but it is a detailed task.

That's why the legislation contemplates the three-year period to have those

discussions — what will largely be licensee specific.

MacPhail: If nothing is concluded before the three years, it means this

government will have been beyond one term and will have done nothing in this

area. So, I'm a bit taken aback that the minister is relying on a three-year

period. As I read the debate by the Liberal backbenchers, they referred over and

over and over again to the 1990s as being a disastrous decade. Well, before any

conclusion is reached on this matter,

[ Page 5750 ]

we'll be well into the second half of the decade of the two-thousands.

Perhaps the

minister could give us some guidance on how the 20 percent is to be determined.

Is he planning on using the full three years? Will there be an order in which

companies come forward? Will there be regional discussions? Who will be involved

in making the determination?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The short answer, I think, is quite obviously that I would like

this to go as quickly and smoothly as possible. The three-year period I've

alluded to is a bookend, and to the extent that the vast majority of this can be

accomplished in advance of that, that is very much my hope.

There are

some features to this, though, that I certainly would like all members to be

aware of, and that is the very significant interest we have in incorporating

first nations into this discussion, recognizing that of the amount slated for

reallocation a significant portion is designed to meet our obligations to first

nations. It would be logical, at the earliest possible moment, for them to be

involved in the discussions — discussions with licensees and discussions with

government — and I do not underestimate the capacity that has for guiding the

discussions and negotiations and for influencing those discussions as we move

forward.

MacPhail: Maybe I could read into the record what one first nations group

has said about this. This is from the Nanaimo Daily News of today on the

front page: "Chief Says New Policy 'Arrogant,'" by Nelson Bennett.

"'The

provincial government's forest revitalization plan ignores the government's

legal obligations to consult with first nations over resources and is sure to

trigger a series of legal battles,' says Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs.

"Phillip

said the provincial government failed to meet its legal obligations to consult

with first nations on resource issues before 'ramming' through sweeping

changes to B.C.'s forest policies.

"'Because

they hold 77 of 79 seats, they have this very arrogant attitude,' Phillip

said."

I'll read

the whole article; it's very short.

"The

changes announced Wednesday include a takeback of 20 percent of Crown tenures,

a portion of which goes to first nations. First nations share of Crown forests

in B.C. will expand from the current 3 percent to 8 percent, according to the

provincial government. The government also proposes to share forestry revenue

with first nations.

[1525]

"Phillip

disputes the government's figures, saying the increased access to tenure

actually amounts to a 2 or 3 percent increase at most, not a 5 percent

increase. Several court decisions have confirmed aboriginal rights over

resources, especially in unceded territory. Since few treaties were signed in

B.C., most of the province is unceded territory. In February of last year the

B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously ruled the provincial government and

Weyerhaeuser did not properly consult with the Haida nation over the renewal

of a tree farm licence in Queen Charlotte Islands.

"'That

ruling obliges the provincial government and industry to hold

proper consultations with first nations before any development can occur in

first nation territory, and in drafting its new forest policies, the

government hasn't done that,' Phillip said. Far from providing more certainty,

Phillip said he expects the new policies will result in increased legal

challenges. 'It's going to take more litigation to bring the federal and

provincial governments to heel to make them understand our legal rights,' he

said."

That's kind of an inauspicious beginning to assuming that this is

all going to go very well, I would suggest. Sorry, Mr. Chair. That's the end

of the article. Why did the government feel it necessary to invoke legislation

to do what is really the legal right of first nations in terms of access to

tenure?

Hon. M.

de Jong: As always, I appreciate the member's thoughtful questions and,

obviously, her right and option to read commentary into the record, though the

question from this member surprises me a little bit because I think she knows

the answer. That is that we have obligations that are politically based — that

is, promises that this government has made — but, much more importantly,

obligations that are being increasingly defined by the courts, and they relate

to the need for us to accommodate as a society the interests of first nations as

they relate to a whole range of matters.

In this

case we're focusing on forestry and the forest resource, but our ability as a

society, our ability as a government — any government — to meet those

obligations is tied to our possessing the currency required to do just that. In

a world where 98 percent of the AAC is already allocated, Forests ministers,

opposition leaders or members of this House can stand and yell until the cows

come home about the interests we have in providing tenure opportunities to first

nations. If we don't possess the volume in order to allow that to happen, then

they really are statements that don't amount to very much.

At its

root, this represents a piece of legislation that minimally provides the Crown

with the ability to acquire some of the tools necessary — in this case, timber

— to satisfy those obligations. I won't comment at length on the article,

except to say that the comments attributed to the chief in Mr. Bennett's

article, as they relate to volumes, I simply disagree with.

Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Leader of the Opposition

for allowing me to ask a question or two of the minister which, in fact, is tied

to the line of questioning we are pursuing under

section 2. I know that,

perhaps, there is no direct relationship between the line of questioning in and

around first nations interests, but certainly indirectly, at least, it is

related. It's my understanding that, in fact, under Bill 29 there will be

considerable discussions with respect to first nations concerns.

[1530]

underscore the point that I think the Leader of the Opposition has been making

with respect to these changes before us, which will be implemented shortly,

[ Page 5751 ]

I expect that from a first nations perspective…. It's my understanding that

most first nations in fact are — if not openly critical with respect to the

changes and the lack of consultation from their perspective — at least quietly

questioning why it is we find ourselves in the position we're in here in this

House, implementing change without the kind of consultation that is critical, is

necessary, for all concerned.

I have

before me — from the part of the world from which I hail, Prince George — a

couple of news releases. One is from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, an

important tribal council representing numerous first nations — a news release

criticizing this government moving forward as it is, characterizing this

legislation and the lack of consultation as very disturbing. I have, as well,

from the northwest tribal treaty group another news release dated March 28 —

the earlier news release is dated March 27 of this year — again talking about

their concerns with respect to the fact that there have not been the kinds of

consultations that in fact are necessary in order for both first nations and

non–first nations to work together to ensure the kinds of opportunities that

they — that is, first nations and non–first nations, forest-dependent

communities — need to enjoy.

I happen to

know that the minister, as the former critic for Aboriginal Affairs, is

exceedingly familiar with first nations concerns in and around the forest sector

and opportunities that are tied to the forest sector in these forest-dependent

communities. As well, the minister in his previous life was a lawyer, so I'm

certain that he's also familiar with the case law. There's considerable

discussion made in the news release of the northwest tribal treaty group with

respect to case law and what it says to the whole question of consultation.

My concern,

as a representative of a number of forest-dependent communities including the

larger community of Prince George, is that we may find, at the end of the day

— even though, as I say, this legislation will, I expect, be implemented and

will bring about enormous change…. Nonetheless, we will find ourselves, with

respect to first nations and first nations concerns and interests, back in the

place where perhaps we face blockades. Perhaps we will find ourselves in a place

where we find ourselves in the courts. I don't think these types of actions are

particularly productive in terms of moving forward and creating the kind of

certainty to which we've all made reference and which we all want, frankly, with

respect to opportunities in the forest sector, particularly taken in the context

of the enormous challenges that we face with respect to markets, softwood and

what have you.

Again, I

know the minister has worked very hard on that softwood file, and we all wish

him every success. I can tell you that partisanship and differences aside,

that's a file we want to see solved. I've publicly made the comment that, in my

view, this minister is smart, he's tough, he's dedicated, and it's my hope that,

in fact, that's a file he resolves.

I have some

concerns — representing, as I do, first nations communities — that in fact

we do not see the kind of consultation or commitment to consultation that is

necessary in order to move forward and move forward smoothly. I'm just

wondering: has the minister considered…? Is there some kind of a mechanism for

consultation, given the demand of first nations for meaningful consultation,

beyond the implementation of this legislation?

[1535]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for his thoughtful comments. I know it is a

subject that has attracted his attention in the past and to which he has devoted

a great deal of energy — and not illogically, given the part of the province

that he represents.

The best

way, I think, that I can respond to the observations and ultimately the question

is to point out the dilemma we face — any government, the government of the

day — confronted on the one hand by the expressions of the expectations that

first nations have to be more directly involved in forestry development and in

economic opportunities generally around the province. For many first nations,

that means forestry. It is the resource that surrounds them in their

communities, and it has been, I am sure, horribly frustrating to watch that

resource utilized and impacted, and to have been largely excluded from the

benefits that go with that. So first nations say: "It is time to let us

participate fully in this resource that exists around our homes and on our

traditional territories." I agree. I think the member agrees; the

government agrees. It is a sentiment that all in this House, I think, agree

with.

The

dilemma, as I referred to earlier, relates to the fact that — to this point at

least — previous contractual arrangements have limited the Crown's ability to

give effect to those desires. So the member pointed out some of the concerns

arising out of the CSTC, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, and I have heard

those concerns. I, however, place them in the context of having been told not so

long ago by certain members of that tribal council that the offer that was made

for 500,000 cubic metres of cut was insufficient. Now, we may negotiate and

quarrel about whether that is so. At the end of the day I think one of the

answers from the Crown is, "But that's what we have" — and, sadly,

have that largely because of uplifts that have occurred due to the pine beetle

infestation that the member knows well and has worked to call attention to.

So how do

we rectify that? We have here, broadly speaking, a strategy that tries to put

the Crown in the position where it can come to the table with more currency.

This bill is not about revenue-sharing, but there is that aspect of this as well

— combined — putting the Crown in a position where it can present some

accommodation offers that hopefully will elicit support from first nations. From

a significant

section of the first nations community, there is an argument and a

cry that say: "Get on with that, because we want to get moving. We want to

start putting people to work the way the Cheslatta are putting people to work

and the way the Lheidli-T'enneh are wanting to put people to work."

Offsetting that cry to get on with it, of course, is the

[ Page 5752 ]

argument that says: "We also want to be fully engaged in the discussion

moving forward."

[1540]

understand that, and I think the thrust of the question that the member has

asked, quite properly, is: what does one do moving forward? And I agree with the

member completely. The present circumstance is unsatisfactory. If we are going

to engage in a consultative process based on an individual relationship between

an individual member and individual bands, the workability of that is, in my

view, very much in doubt. The sheer numbers cause logistical problems. So I

think the challenge, and the subject of a discussion with the northwest tribal

treaty association that I agreed with, is that we have to find a structure so

that those discussions are taking place on an ongoing basis. Though there are

always political issues, there are, in the context of what we are doing here,

also very technical issues that relate to the operation of forestry in the

province — the involvement of bands, the allocation of timber, forest health

issues and questions around things like cut control, which we're going to

discuss in another bill.

I think the

challenge we have is to develop that structure on an ongoing basis. I have asked

individuals with the Aboriginal Forest Industries Council to work with us to

develop that. There are talks ongoing with the organization that the member

referred to. I know there is frustration there that it has taken this long.

I hope that

amidst the concerns and the criticisms that have arisen, there is some

recognition for what the intent is here and what the motivation is. I am told

that as Forests ministers go, I have met more often and more frequently with

first nations than any predecessor. I don't say that as a way of begging

applause but simply as a signal of the interest and the level of import that I

and the government attach to this. I know the member is going to remain

vigilant. I know the member is going to do what he can, as he has in the past,

to help create those relationships that we need to have moving forward.

MacPhail: Well, wasn't that pleasant — a nice little chat about first

nations, etc. All very nice, except the bill's going to be rammed through by

March 31 — tonight — and first nations are upset. They don't see this in the

same way that the Minister of Forests did, and the reason why the Minister of

Forests has had to meet so frequently with first nations is because he keeps

doing things without consulting them.

Let me just

tell the House what the First Nations Summit did on March 12, 2003. They passed

a unanimous resolution that requested the cabinet to postpone the Forest Act

amendments until the fall session of the House in order to provide time for

first nations input. That was after the Minister of Forests met with the first

nations on March 11. It's all very well and good to have meetings, but if you

have a meeting that just makes people more upset and takes more of their rights

away, it ain't that productive a time.

The

Minister of Forests was told clearly on March 11 at the summit that there was

insufficient consultation and no accommodation of their concerns regarding

legislative and policy changes. Also, it's true that the Minister of Forests met

with northwest tribal treaty nations on March 3, but there he heard very clearly

that their suggestions to postpone legislation were sincere and serious and that

they wanted the legislation postponed because there was no consultation or

accommodation.

What's the

good news for first nations around the province as a result of this legislation?

Well, they're having an emergency planning session three days from now to

discuss these unilateral changes — not to sit down with the minister because

it's been such good legislation, but they're having an emergency planning

session because of the unilateral changes brought in by this government.

We've got

lots of time to read into the record the media releases from the Carrier-Sekani

tribal council, released March 27. Let me just read a couple of the opening

paragraphs. The title of the news release from the Carrier-Sekani is:

"Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council Says Minister of Forests Is Asking for a

Legal Battle."

"Yesterday's

announcement that the forest legislation and policy changes are moving forward

without input from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council are 'very disturbing,'

says Vice Tribal Chief Harold Prince. Vice Tribal Chief Prince says: 'First

nations throughout the province have stated very clearly, through discussions

and correspondence, that changes cannot occur unless accommodation is first

negotiated.'

[1545]

"'The

Carrier-Sekani tribal council has on several occasions stated in writing, to

both the Premier and the Minister of Forests, that they must first accommodate

our concerns. The First Nations Summit stated two weeks ago in a unanimous

resolution that the minister should postpone the changes to allow for first

nations input, and the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations stated the same just

three weeks ago.'"

The

minister is somehow trying to say: how else could he do this? What's the

problem in recognizing the legal rights of first nations to have their

interests accommodated, and the legal obligation of both forest companies and

the government to consult before making changes? What's the problem with the

principle of willing buyer, willing seller?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not sure I understood the question. It seems to me though, if I

have understood correctly, the question that arises from it is that the legal

duty to accommodate is not some nebulous thing that is dependent upon the extent

to which the Crown can identify a willing seller. It is a real duty that the

courts have imposed.

I suppose

we could tell first nations to cool their heels for another decade or two while

we somehow obtain the currency we need to act upon the obligation the courts

have identified for us. But I hardly think that would represent a satisfactory

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

first

[ Page 5753 ]

nations that the member neglects to mention, and I wouldn't expect her to —

those who, ironically, have made great steps in the last months and several

years to become more involved economically in forestry and who are saying quite

clearly that they have achieved more in the last two years and have greater

expectations for the immediate years moving forward than ever before.

I suppose

the member identifies another possible route to the reallocation of timber

resources, but I hardly think it's one that would meet with a more positive

response, if I understand the suggestion correctly.

MacPhail: What we're trying to figure out here is how the 20 percent

takeback came about, who's impacted by it and what the consequences are. Those

are the questions I'm asking. So far I've been told there will be three years of

negotiations. That hardly gives stability or certainty to first nations. It

hardly gives stability to forest workers, and it definitely doesn't give

stability to the communities that are forest dependent.

I'm just

exploring with the minister the concept of the 20 percent takeback. He said one

of the reasons why we need to do this is to ensure allocation fairness to first

nations. That's the basis upon which I'm exploring this. I don't recall any

first nation briefing me somehow suggesting they advocated legislation for 20

percent takeback.

[1550]

I am told

that there has been a wide recognition of the legal obligation of companies to

allocate part of their tenure to first nations. Why did we then, given the fact

that companies are moving in this direction, all of a sudden determine that it

would be the government that would determine the takeback without consulting

first nations and, frankly, undercutting what I'm told are some companies that

wanted to sit down and have willing buyer, willing seller negotiations?

Hon. M.

de Jong: If I have missed a point, the member will remind me, I'm sure.

First of

all, unlike the member, in the time I've had this job, I actually have received

a steady stream of recommendations from first nations to do just this: to

acquire the ability to redistribute tenure from its present owners to first

nations. Now, have there been different views about the amount? Absolutely. But

the notion that the Crown would take pre-emptive measures to initiate this

reallocation is something any number of first nations have advocated for some

time.

I don't

want the member to think I am dismissing her suggestion out of hand, because, in

fairness, it is something that was discussed — that is, the notion of saying

to licensees: "You go and try to come to these accommodation agreements or

arrangements." It does not, at the end of the day, discharge the Crown from

its legal obligations and fiduciary duties.

The other

thing I would say candidly to the member is that the government's interest….

Presumably our interest extends beyond securing certainty for any one licensee.

It is to achieve, at the end of the day, a level of certainty on the land base

for everyone. The ability to do that without being directly involved in the

process is, I think, open to question and has clearly led us in the direction of

the model that the member sees here.

MacPhail: I hope the minister will, early in this debate, come to the

conclusion that he should not leap to conclusions because I am asking questions.

I am trying to understand from whence this legislation came. It certainly didn't

come from forest workers. It didn't come from the communities, and it seems to

me that first nations are pretty upset too. So where did it come from, and where

is it going?

Maybe I'll

take it in smaller baby steps to figure out, then, where it's going. The 20

percent is going to be determined by negotiations. Who will be at the table?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The discussions that I contemplate moving forward would involve

Forest Service staff generally at the district level or perhaps at the regional

level. There will be involvement from officials at the senior ministerial level,

particularly, I think, in the formative stages and at the concluding stages.

Those discussions would relate specifically to the licensee whose interest is

being directly impacted by the reallocation. I don't know if that helps the

member.

[1555]

MacPhail: Let's just take an example again. I'll use a different company

this time. Let's take Interfor Group. Interfor Group has 13 licences —

International Forest Products Ltd. Will the Forest Service staff meet with the

community affected by licence A16841 at a separate table than A16850?

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Certainly, what will happen is that Forest Service staff will sit

down with representatives from Interfor. I'm not certain where the two licences

the member refers to are located vis-à-vis one another or what proximity they

have to one another, but that will begin the general discussion. The Forest

Service personnel will make it clear early on what the expectations are from the

Crown side, as it relates to the objectives that govern this reform package:

first nations, communities — I've listed them — a representative profile of

timber. Therein will begin the process of identifying where that representative

timber can be drawn from within the licences controlled by the particular

company involved.

MacPhail: The reason why I assume the government is doing this is to put a

whole bunch of timber up for public auction. The minister, in order to meet all

sorts of requirements, has to add about 20 percent — so he says — of the

large tenure holders. Well, unless you know how negotiations are going to be

structured and unless there's sort of a model by which communities or companies

can negotiate it, you could have half in three years reaching the 20 percent and

the other half

[ Page 5754 ]

still wrangling over it. That doesn't help at all. It doesn't help the

overall objective.

I would

have assumed the minister would be able to stand up here and say: "As soon

as this legislation is passed, here's how negotiations are going to commence.

The IWA will be at the table. The CEP will be at the table. The Carrier-Sekani

will be at the table in its traditional territory. The Penticton band will be at

the table in its traditional territory. The community of Pouce Coupe will be at

this table." So far I can't figure out how negotiations are going to occur.

Who will be at the table?

On top of

all of this, it's going to be the Forest Service staff leading the discussions.

How many Forest Service offices did the minister close down today? How many

offices were shut today — forever?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, in fact, as part of a restructuring program that the member

knows well, offices in 20 communities have been significantly downsized, though

I am happy to say that the Forest Service will maintain a presence in each and

every one of those communities. You know, when the forest sector goes through a

period such as it has over the last decade and revenues to government fall by

upwards of $600 million, I guess there are politicians who would pretend that

that does not have an impact on the ability to deliver services. There are

others — and I am one of those — who understand that it has a very direct

impact and, in the case of many Forest Service workers, a very unpleasant one.

No one is denying the importance associated with getting this industry back on

its feet and the need to get beyond the denial that we appear to have been in as

a government and society for too long.

MacPhail: That kind of defence of a scoundrel won't get us anywhere, because

revenue has fallen more under this government in 20 months than it did

throughout the 1990s. So let's not go there.

[1600]

Secondly,

there have been groups of people who have been meeting with this government to

talk about changes in the forest sector — not nearly enough. The group wasn't

nearly broad enough, but they did put their heart and soul into determining

changes in the forest sector — the Truck Loggers Association, the IWA…. And

there were large and small licence holders there. Not one of them at any point

ever suggested expropriation.

Again,

perhaps if there had been a full discussion of accountability, a full discussion

of continued transition funding or a discussion of pension bridging in a

meaningful way, all of those people who have spent a year — admittedly behind

closed doors — trying to assist this minister to get it right would be up here

cheering today. But they're not because all that discussion the minister had, he

completely ignored and moved right to this legislation. That group who was

assisting the minister would suggest today that they can find no justification

for his taking back annual allowable cut to determine market.

Mr. Chair,

I am in favour of tenure reallocation. I am in favour of tenure reallocation of

a substantial amount. But what this government has done — or I'm trying to get

the government to explain to me that this isn't what they've done — is

expropriated, and they've expropriated in the interests of a few at the expense

of many. If indeed that's not the case, tell me who will be at the table to

determine the takeback. Just stand up and tell me: will the IWA be at the table?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, in ways that the member knows, the answer is an unreserved

yes. But I'm puzzled by the statement, "to have expropriated in the favour

of the few to the detriment of the many," which suggests to me that the

member is arguing that those who are directly impacted by this expropriation, as

she puts it, are on the positive end, and I guess we'll hear about that later in

this debate.

There's no

question that there's a balancing of interests involved here. The member

referred to a process that took place over the better part of a year and a half

and that reaped good work, good progress, much of which is embedded in this

reform package. The member won't, I'm sure, ever want to acknowledge that. But

as it relates to a number of different issues, the work of that group has found

its way into this package. Are the truck loggers jumping up and down as

cheerleaders of the government? No. But I did hear them say that recognizing the

competing interests that were involved is the right direction for the government

to be headed in. I happen to take a degree of satisfaction from hearing that

kind of comment from a group that represents 7,500 workers — direct workers.

The member

will choose the comments that she wishes to choose. To be honest, I'm pleased

that in working with some of these groups and with the IWA, who made a very

passionate and, I thought, effective argument around the need to look at pension

bridging, we were able to come up with a process for the first time to deal with

that head-on with real dollars. I know the member will speak to that when we get

to that part of the bill.

[1605]

MacPhail: I spent the weekend preparing for this legislation, and the job

was made easier because I had the assistance of a lot of people — first

nations companies, which came as a surprise to me; people in the community who

are the councillors and mayors of communities that will be directly and

negatively impacted by that; and working people from the IWA, CEP, PPWC. These

points of view that I am putting forward are theirs. All three groups that spent

the better part of a year trying to help this minister reorganize the forest

industry feel completely betrayed by his expropriation — completely betrayed.

It doesn't surprise me at all when people put their heart and soul into

assisting this minister, often having to draw down on their own political

capital to help this government, and then they get betrayed by it.

What I'm

trying to do now is…. When is he going to get them back to the table? Twenty

percent is legis-

[ Page 5755 ]

lated away. I can't for the life of me get the minister to tell me how this

is going to work. We have dozens of licences that maybe one will be drawn down

by…. Or 20 percent will be reallocated. I bet you there could be 40 percent

reallocated, and the corollary licence won't have any reallocation or

expropriation.

Will

community groups be there? Who's going to be at the table? Communities who are

interested in having a community forest licence — will they be at the table?

Will they be bidding? Who gets the 20 percent takeback? How does that process

work?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, the member is going to have to indulge my limited capacity by

sticking to one question, or I'm going to miss some aspect of this.

There is

obviously a process involving the Crown, which has initiated this exercise, and

the licensee, who is firstly and most directly impacted. Thereafter, the member

has seen all of the material in the careful preparation she has done. The

government has not been at all coy about what our expectations are with respect

to the volumes that are reallocated and where we intend to see them reallocated

to. If the member believes that somehow I have been less than forthcoming in

revealing all of that, then she should say so.

But it is

all there in the material — the volumes that are expected to be made available

through auction, the volumes that would be available to community forests, the

volumes that would be available to the woodlot program, the volumes that would

be available to first nations. In fact, it's been very specific, and the process

moving forward recognizes the fact that we need now to move ahead with the

implementation of that blueprint.

The member

is perhaps suggesting to me that the preferred route for her would be for

government to unilaterally decide not just the volume involved but where it's

going to come from, and execute on that without any discussion. That is

certainly a practice that has been followed on occasion in the past. It is not

my or the government's preferred route.

MacPhail: Let's be clear. What happened in the past is that there were

public hearings on takebacks, and everybody had input into takebacks. Those

public hearings are gone now; they're no longer required.

I'm just

trying to figure out what the government's plan is. For one, let's look at the

West Fraser Group. They're going to be giving back 857,934 cubic metres. That is

a huge amount of timber spread over a huge area. In that area there could be

community interests who would want to have a say…. Oh, I'm sorry; that

takeback is a huge area amongst an even bigger area.

There could

be a community working with their local mill, their local IWA, who says:

"We want this part; this volume we want. It can be sustainable. It can

sustain our communities. They're good-paying jobs." And maybe West Fraser

says: "Oh no. Hey, man, that's high-grade stuff. We're getting it. You're

out of here. You're not getting that part."

So who

decides? Who's at the table? Where will the first nations interests begin and

end? Where do the communities' interests begin and end? I mean, these are not

new questions. I would have assumed there would have been a document — an

outline, a manual — already about how negotiations will take place. That's all

I'm asking.

[1610]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am not surprised by the nature of the presentation. I also know

full well that, had I laid out for the member in excruciating detail precisely

what volumes were going to be used for what purpose and with which groups, the

argument would have been: "How dare you presume to move ahead without

properly involving people." Of course there is going to be participation by

community groups and by the Crown.

The purpose

of the exercise is to expand a community forest program. Surely that is

something that engages the full participation of the communities involved, those

that want to avail themselves of opportunities. The reality, of course, is that

it's not been an issue because no government of the past has actually taken the

steps necessary to put itself in a position where it can have those

negotiations. No one is underestimating the breadth or the enormity of the task

that awaits us, but what we have here is a blueprint setting out what we want to

achieve and a mechanism by which it can at last be achieved.

MacPhail: The minister's defence is: "Oh well, no matter what I did,

this person would complain." I'm just seeking detail.

Maybe I'll

break the questions down even smaller, then. What's the analysis of employment

impact of the taking back of the 20 percent that will be used in negotiations?

Is employment impact a factor? Has the minister done any work on the anticipated

employment impacts of taking back 20 percent?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let me say this: the inclusion of the trust to which there is an

allocation of $75 million signals in pretty clear terms the recognition on the

part of the government that there is a transitional cost associated with placing

our forest sector on a firmer economic footing. That visits particularly acutely

on the coast, and it visits upon workers in the processing sector and

potentially in the harvesting sector — both employees of licensees and the

contracting community.

An analysis

has been done, taking into account both the work that Dr. Pearse conducted for

the government just over a year ago and some of the discussions that have taken

place bilaterally with labour organizations like the IWA and at the larger table

that was in place over the last year and a half.

MacPhail: Well, gee, my research was much more productive than that. One

forest company said to me: "We've got 2,000 employees. Twenty percent means

that 20 percent of those employees are gone." They'd thought that through.

[ Page 5756 ]

Has the

minister done any employment impact on the 20 percent takeback? Is there a way

of taking back 20 percent that affects employment less?

[1615]

Hon. M.

de Jong: The thing I want to try and convey to this member, and she may —

in fact, I'm certain, based on her comments of a moment ago — have already

made up her mind about this…. A timber reallocation does not equate with the

timber disappearing. The fact that timber is available on the open market means

just that. It is available to licensees, admittedly at market prices.

Those who

would suggest that somehow the presentation of this Crown-owned fibre for use

via a different mechanism automatically precludes any licensee from accessing

that timber are just wrong.

MacPhail: Just tell me on what the minister bases that. What analysis has he

done to say that there won't be a loss of jobs? He just stood up and basically

said how dare I assume that there would be a job loss. What analysis has he done

to say that there won't be?

Let me just

tell you a piece of advice I received over the weekend about this public auction

of timber. This was from a group of people who are very suspicious about why the

government is doing it the way it is — through legislation — because, this

company group says, it won't have the effect that the minister claims it will

have in terms of keeping all of the benefits in British Columbia.

The 20

percent takeback from licence holders will go up for public auction. That 20

percent at public auction will then determine the price that the licence holders

will pay for the other 80 percent. That 20 percent at public auction is very

key, but the price at auction will no longer be governed by Bill 13. We use that

for shorthand here. Bill 13 is the contractual relationship between the loggers

and the licence holder. In my view, it's worked extremely well.

Bill 13 is

gone now. Bill 13 is red-circled. I'll sit down because the minister is making

all sorts of faces. Is Bill 13 gone or not?

Hon. M.

de Jong: No.

MacPhail: Will Bill 13 be gone? Is it red-circled?

Hon. M.

de Jong: No.

MacPhail: So all of the contractors that operate now will be the Bill 13

contractors?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Two different questions. Are Bill 13 contractors, over time,

impacted by either the takeback or the regulatory changes that are contemplated

and spelled out in the package for Bill 13? I think they will be, and part of

our calculation has taken that into account.

MacPhail: In fact, I predict that Bill 13 contractors will be red-circled

and will be gone. That's what everybody out there in the industry thinks too.

That is the prediction of everybody out there in the industry, both the

contractors and the companies. Whatever contractors are logging now….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, I have no idea. The companies I talked to and the

contractors I talked to didn't get into batting at each other. They were batting

at the government. No company has suggested to me that it was their wish, and no

contractor has suggested that they were anything other than efficient for the

job.

So, the

contractors will be gone under Bill 13. The contractors left will be ones that

will be working directly with the large licence holders, who will have their

fixed costs covered. They will be out there bidding for timber, able to pay a

higher price for timber on the log market at the auction because somebody else

will be covering their fixed costs, and therefore the price will be artificially

high.

[1620]

In fact,

the price will be artificially high just as it is with small business timber

sales now, where there are contractors who front in the bidding process for the

large licence holders. Prices are artificially high in the small business timber

sales now, but that's going to expand to the 20 percent. That 20 percent price

will guide the rest of the 80 percent. It really will mean more revenue having

to be paid to the government and that this is really a grab for revenue. Perhaps

the minister could dissuade me of that premise.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Again, I don't know now whether the member is articulating views

that were expressed to her or whether she is making it clear, through you in

this debate, Mr. Chair, that she opposes a timber pricing system built around

the auction of publicly owned timber. This is a system that quite frankly is

designed for and will benefit the most efficient operators, and to that charge I

plead guilty. Whether it is in the processing division or in the harvesting

division, whether it is a company crew or a contractor…. In the case of the

contracting community, we have been very clear.

The

provisions of Bill 13 will be changed so that the rate test is tied to the

market. If the member is expressing the concerns of some around that principle,

I have heard them. But I must tell her, as I have been telling people for the

better part of a year and a half, that the government and I are of the view that

we need to increase our competitiveness and our efficiency, and the price for

not doing so is a continuation of the trend we have seen over the last ten

years.

MacPhail: My job here is to figure out how this is going to work. It's on a

hope and a prayer and "maybe negotiations will work" that so far I've

had information. I'm suggesting that an expansion of a public auction that works

on the basis of how it works now in the small business

section is an artificial

market. It's got people fronting. It's got little guys fronting for the big

[ Page 5757 ]

guys. Prices are artificially high. The small guys have had their fixed costs

covered off by the large guys, and there's an artificially high price.

Let me ask

this. What revenue increase does the minister anticipate over what period of

time from a public auction?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I want to say this with all sincerity. These are questions that

pertain to the use of the volume that we'd be taking back, and I am interested

in having that discussion with the member. I note that its direct tie to the

language in the

section is a bit remote, but I don't want to dissuade the

member.

Our revenue

projections are as the member has seen them in the budgetary instruments. They

are there. They do not take into account, in any way, possible settlement on the

softwood lumber dispute file out of an abundance of caution, although there is

clearly a potential for a settlement in that realm to impact. The revenue

projections are as they exist in the budgetary instrument and are built in part

around the plan that we are talking about here.

[1625]

MacPhail: Two comments on relevancy. I recall a debate when the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services was Forests critic. He read a poem

called My Dog Shep. So that's No. 1. And No. 2, I assume that the

takeback is about doing something different in order to have a price system that

is actually market based. Otherwise, there's no reason or there must be another

reason for having a takeback. It's all related to getting timber up for public

auction that will reflect market prices.

What I'm

saying is that there are a whole whack of people out there in the industry now

who think that the current market-based system in the small business enterprise

section does not in any way reflect true market values, and that there are a

whole bunch of people suspicious throughout the industry who think that this is

all about price inflation and more revenue for the government.

Well, I've

asked the minister when these negotiations would be completed or how long they

would take. Do the revenue projections that are in the three-year fiscal plan

then reflect what period of conclusion of negotiations and the new system being

in place?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The revenues that are forecast in the budgetary instruments, as I

say, do not take into account the possibility of settlement with the Americans

and are built largely around the data that we now collect. I can say to the

member that following implementation of the market-based timber pricing system

contemplated here, stumpage will rise and fall with the market. I would also

acknowledge to her, though, that my expectation and belief is that as the

industry becomes more competitive, that will be reflected over time in increased

revenues to the Crown and a recouping of some of those revenues that have been

lost over the last six, seven or eight years.

Nettleton: It may be that I've somehow missed something outside of this

debate here today, but one of the questions that certainly comes to mind is: how

did the government arrive at the 20 percent figure for reducing timber licences?

Why not 15 or 35? Why 20?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, we inventoried what we thought our needs were insofar as some

of the objectives we spelled out around the establishment of a market-based

timber pricing system. This member will know that in his part of the province.

Stepping back from the system that is presently in place, including some of its

features like the waterbed, is something that licensees in that part of the

province have been calling for, for some time.

So we

looked at what our needs were — first nations, community forests, woodlots,

volume through an auction — based on, in part, this question: how much volume

do you need to run through an auction system to derive sufficient data to

credibly drive the rest of your stumpage system? I should say, and admit also,

based in part upon an acknowledgment of the funds government had available to

compensate for the retaking and reallocation of that volume…. So a combination

of the two.

The

Chair: With the approval of the House, we'll have a ten-minute recess.

Motion

approved.

The

Chair: We'll return here at 20 minutes to the hour. The House will be in

recess till 20 minutes to five.

The

committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

section

2 (continued) .

MacPhail: What is the minister preparing to do for socioeconomic impact

assessment around the takeback?

[1645]

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, the government has already commissioned such a report —

the member knows about it — by Dr. Pearse. I think in the past I have heard

her articulate her disagreement with it, but it has painted a picture of the

situation facing, particularly, the coastal industry and our need to take

specific action. I think it is fair to say, broadly speaking, that the

government accepts the diagnosis and, in large measure, the prognosis for how to

alleviate the worst of what Dr. Pearse has described will occur if we don't take

steps.

MacPhail: Is the socioeconomic report that the minister will use the Pearse

report?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not sure if the member didn't hear me or misconstrued me. The

report that Dr. Pearse

[ Page 5758 ]

has prepared lays out in excruciating detail the impacts that will continue

to befall this industry unless a plan is executed that will reverse the

circumstances giving rise to that steady decline. It is a report commissioned by

an eminent forestry economist with a very specific, albeit difficult, diagnosis,

and one that I'm sure causes many people great concern. The challenge, of

course, is to create the set of circumstances that Dr. Pearse alluded to that

will lead, for example, to the construction of a dozen new processing facilities

for our coastal industry.

MacPhail: I did hear the minister. Perhaps the minister could tell me the

date of this report.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It was released in 2001.

MacPhail: Yes, I thought that was the report he was referring to. That, of

course, is a report that talks about what will happen if there is no

rationalization. It makes an argument for rationalization. I don't recall Dr.

Pearse talking about what the socioeconomic impact would be on communities and

their families with the takeback of 20 percent. He said there would have to be

mill closures, and he said there would be pain.

I'm asking

this minister whether he has done a study about what the socioeconomic impact

will be on workers and their families — assessing the viability of workers

being able to move, for instance, from community to community; assessing the age

of families in the community. Will schools be affected? It's that kind of thing.

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, I think it is important that we recognize up front

the costs as spelled out by a number of analysts, including Dr. Pearse — the

costs associated with continuing down the path we are on. The need, if we are

serious about diverting from that path and creating a hope and sense of future

in forestry from making changes…. In fact, Dr. Pearse does lay out something

of a descriptive about what is possible for communities, if government has the

courage to take particular steps as it relates to creating the circumstances in

which investment will return.

[1650]

I will say

this. Even at this early stage — in advance, actually, of the unveiling of

this package — we are beginning to see signs of that. If one goes to a

facility in Campbell River owned by TimberWest — a plant that just a few years

ago was deemed antiquated and outdated and whose continued operation was very

much in doubt — we are now seeing decisions being made to reinvest significant

amounts of money to modernize that facility. It is something that I know the

member will want to pursue in terms of attaching specific job figures. The

reality is this: our clear objective is to create a circumstance in which much

of that rationalization will play out differently than the first scenario Dr.

Pearse described and in which the impacts will be averted by seeing that new

investment take place and those upgraded facilities take place.

I am

mindful, also, that on the coast, where this problem is generally regarded as

being most acute, we have over the past number of years undercut timber volumes

by upwards of three million cubic metres. It would seem to me that part of the

challenge, in terms of creating a heightened sense of stability, is to find the

mechanism by which we can begin to re-access that three million cubic metres. I

think it's three million cubic metres that historically, over the past number of

years, has gone unharvested. That, in and of itself, will have an incredibly

positive impact in alleviating some of the challenges associated with

restructuring and retooling.

MacPhail: What did Dr. Pearse say would happen to the families who are

affected by a takeback of 20 percent? That's what my question was.

Hon. M.

de Jong: There are impacts. No one is suggesting that this is going to be

without challenge or without difficulties. It's why we've allocated right up

front a significant sum of money, which we'll come to later in this bill, that

is there to provide some assistance with respect to those impacts.

MacPhail: We've heard in our briefing that the $200 million for compensating

the companies is just a beginning figure. Is the $75 million for taking care of

the families and the communities just a beginning figure?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am going to suggest that the member remember that question when

we get to the appropriate section.

MacPhail: It was the minister who brought up the fund. I asked about

socioeconomic impacts. He referred to a $75 million fund. I did a follow-up

question. What socioeconomic impact study led to the $75 million figure for

compensation?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Broadly speaking, there are two considerations. First of all, we

have conducted an analysis of the replaceable harvesting rights that stand to be

impacted under this strategy, this package, and endeavoured to quantify that.

Actually, I should say three considerations.

[1655]

well, we have been provided with copies of material from the IWA as it relates

to some of the strategies that we were pursuing and will continue to pursue

jointly with the federal government, persuaded by the numbers provided by the

IWA with respect to things like pension bridging.

Thirdly —

and I say this equally candidly — others, including the IWA, will point out

that they made an argument for additional funds beyond $50 million. I,

unfortunately, am somewhat impacted by ability to pay on the government side.

MacPhail: Will there be any socioeconomic studies done, further to what the

government already has, that may guide negotiations about takeback?

[ Page 5759 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let me give the member an example of the kind of discussion that I

think is relevant and anticipate taking place. The member will know that

specific to this reform initiative is the desire to allocate additional volumes

for community forests, and communities have been particularly interested in

acquiring some means by which they can more directly control their own destiny.

That presumably will have some direct impacts as it relates to the use those

communities want to make of that increased fibre basket, the strategies they

employ and how that might also relate to the talent that exists within their

communities on the part of workers. That's one example of a very direct way that

communities will be involved in this process.

I might

add, consistent with something that I have heard repeatedly over the last year

and a half from people within the IWA and the IWA leadership, that they are not

particularly interested in retraining schemes that would have them become

wildlife guide-outfitters or tourist individuals. They are interested in

remaining, to the extent that they can, within the forest sector. An expanded

community forest program is one way, potentially, to see that happen.

MacPhail: Yes, and I can fully understand that. But my job is to figure out

from the minister what he's planning on doing for the families and the workers

in the communities who will be dislocated. Back to the guy who's running a big

shop in a forest company — 20 percent takeback means 20 percent loss in jobs

in his calculation. That's after maybe 25 years of experience in the industry on

the management side.

Will the

negotiations that the minister referred to, to determine the 20 percent

takeback, have any requirement for taking into account family dislocation or

worker dislocation?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, I'm not going to discount the relevance of those

elements from the discussion from the Crown's point of view, the licensees, the

communities, the workers. I'm going to suggest as well, however, that it is very

much a component of the discussion that will take place on the board of the

agency charged with administering the $75 million trust, and the member will

know that will include representatives from the IWA, the contracting community,

licensees and government.

[1700]

The final

point I think I would like to make — and I do want to emphasize this — is

that the trees are not going anywhere. In fact, what we are endeavouring to do

is create a circumstance in which we can reclaim three million cubic metres of

cut that has been underharvested. It has struck me, and I presume the member,

quite odd that at a time when there is tremendous dislocation, particularly in

our coastal community, we are undercutting by three million cubic metres. It

must at least beg the question: why is that? So the trees are going to be there,

and, in fact, we hope access to a larger share of the full entitlement, the full

AAC as set by the chief forester.

MacPhail: We don't expect the public to be experts in the forest industry,

but it's a bit glib for the minister to somehow suggest that an undercut of

three million cubic metres will be resolved by this bill. There are all sorts of

reasons why there has been an undercut in the province, and this bill — or the

combination of the three — will go very little way toward solving that problem

unless, of course, raw log exports are permitted.

So when the

minister says the trees aren't going anywhere, how does he know that? I looked

for somewhere in the bill where there will be restrictions on the use of the

takeback. There are none. So will there be a public auction where only Williams

Lakers can attend, or won't Americans be allowed to attend public auctions —

standing timber — and get their logging truck and have at it and go home with

their logs? What's to prevent them from doing that? I couldn't find anything in

the bill to suggest that there would anything to prevent that.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: This is going to shock the heck out of the member. Americans can

come to British Columbia today and bid on timber — right now, today — as we

sit here. The restrictions we have in place, however, require that that timber

be processed in British Columbia. The reason the member doesn't see anything in

this bill is because all of those restrictions will remain in place.

MacPhail: Sorry. The restriction is that the logs will have to be used in

mills in British Columbia. Is that right? Okay. Then perhaps the minister could

explain why the companies are so happy that there are no employment ties — or

some companies are — to the use of the new system. In fact, I think it was the

minister himself who announced that.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Okay. The minister announced a package of changes. He announced a

package of changes that said there would be a public auction. Appurtenancy is

gone, cut control is gone, location of mills is gone, and there's going to be a

public auction. He also assumed that this would go a long way — it wasn't done

for that purpose, but that it would go a long way — toward resolving the

softwood lumber dispute. And if the minister is somehow suggesting that if

appurtenancy is gone, minimum cut control is gone, mill closure restrictions are

gone, but still the logs are going to be used by British Columbians in their

communities, what did he do all this for, then?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I know we will have a wholesome debate on these matters when we get

to the bill that actually deals with these matters, which the member will know

is slated for debate sometime in the future.

But let me

say to the member here and now, so she will have a clear sense of what I will

say then…. If we

[ Page 5760 ]

are serious about maximizing the value of the timber resource we own in

British Columbia, then I say it is time we came to terms with the fact that in

some cases it makes more sense to take a tree that is cut down from a particular

location 20 kilometres further down the road to a value-added use for which it

is better suited. Yes, there are people who disagree with that. I am someone who

happens to agree with it — that the time has come where we dedicated ourselves

in a meaningful way to the construction of a policy regime that actually removes

the impediments to maximizing the value and the return on the resource that

British Columbians own. That, as the member knows, in subsequent legislation has

led to some very sweeping and significant changes.

[1705]

MacPhail: We will have that debate.

I asked the

minister what evidence people could find in this bill that the logs aren't going

anywhere. He's got 20 percent more going up for public auction. Bill 13 is gone.

I mean, the minister would like to say: "Oh no, the rudiments of Bill 13

will still be in place."

An American

can come up, bid on the standing timber, cut it down and take it home. There's

nothing that prevents that right now. Is it the cabinet restriction on raw log

exports that prevents that, then? Is that the only thing now standing in its

way?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Look, I know this doesn't fit with the messaging that she is trying

to do on this, but the precise same regulatory restrictions that existed under

her government and that exist today will exist following the passage of this

legislation. It's as simple as that.

MacPhail: I'm asking the minister to articulate what that is. Just

articulate it. Put it on the record, because appurtenancy is gone, mill closure

legislation requirements are gone, and cut control is gone. So what's left?

What's the regulation left that says logs will be used by British Columbians,

let's say, in British Columbia? I'll give him the whole province.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The specific legislative

mechanism is

section 127 of the Forest Act, which remains completely in place

and applies to timber harvested from Crown lands.

I should

say, though, looking ahead to the debate we are going to have around Bill 27 —

and I'm sure the member knows this — that we are actually tightening the

definition that will ensure there is no doubt and will actually beef up that

restriction around log exports.

MacPhail: I just know the record of this government in terms of raw log

exports. In the last year of the previous administration one million cubic

metres were exported, and in the first year of this government's reign —

regime — it was 1.8 million cubic metres of raw logs exported. That's almost a

doubling.

It will be

interesting to see how the tightening-up actually works under this government,

because certainly they felt that the way they could apply the rules for raw log

exports meant a doubling of raw log exports. Nobody took pride in a

one-million-cubic-metre level of raw log exports in the final year of government

either.

What's the

environmental analysis that's to be done around lands allocated for the 20

percent takeback?

[1710]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think one of the things the member needs to remind herself of as

we go through this discussion is that it is not always appropriate to speak of

lands. While in some cases there will eventually be an area-based definition,

that is not always the case. It is volume-based as well.

The

legislation is neutral. What we are deciding here is how to allocate the

forestry resource. All of the relevant environmental legislation that is in

place now, some of which the member and I debated in the fall of last year….

The Forest and Range Practices Act and all of that legislation continue to apply

where forestry activity takes place, irrespective of who is conducting that

forestry activity.

MacPhail: Yes, but there is a way of dividing up the part…. And thank you.

I expect the minister is reminding the public that I said, "of those lands

allocated to the 20 percent takeback," understanding the takeback could be

volume-based as well.

In fact, it

could all be volume-based. The 20 percent could be all volume-based and have a

public auction, and everything would be just fine. But there will be a way of

changing tenure, land-based tenure, that will have an impact on wildlife

habitat, the division of lands on wildlife habitat — riparian zones, for

instance — that will be more complex if, indeed, they are not under one owner,

one management zone. In fact, that's more than likely to happen. So what's the

consideration in that area?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, this will help the member. In the course of this process

the Forest Service will continue, as it is entitled and expected to do pursuant

to statutory authority, to exercise its environmental oversight to ensure that

the selection and reallocation process takes place in a way that is consistent

with sound forest and environmental management objectives.

I don't

think the member said this, but perhaps there are people who hold this view. I

do not automatically react negatively to the fact that tenure will be held by a

more diverse group of individuals or companies. We have to and will ensure that

the principles of stewardship and sound environmental management are not

compromised, but I happen to think there are real benefits associated with a

more diversified holding of tenure.

MacPhail: Part of the debate we had with the changes to the Forest Practices

Code was to eliminate

[ Page 5761 ]

red tape. So the minister was getting out of the business of tenure holders

having to file various levels of plans. But one of the things that he insisted

was that they would still have to do the plans, both the wildlife habitat plans

and the riparian zone plans. In fact, site plans would have to be done and would

have to be available if asked for. But it would only be the tenure holders'

responsibility to do those for the area of tenure over which they have control,

and there would be a requirement to work with the tenure holder next to him or

her to make sure that they jibed. So the smaller you get, the more requirement

there is for making sure that the site plans…. Taking into account all of the

environmental values that we discussed at length, they'll be more of that work

to be done. Who oversees that, then?

[1715]

Hon. M.

de Jong: All of the obligations are part of the Forest and Range Practices

Act, and the Forest and Range Practices Act during the transitional stages will

continue to apply. Any licensee, irrespective of their size, will need to factor

that in as they consider the costs associated with practising forestry in B.C.

The compliance and enforcement

section of the Forest Service will continue to

exercise its oversight as set out in the legislation.

MacPhail: The Pearse report said mills would have to close. How many mills

does the minister anticipate could close with the 20 percent takeback?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The point I want to make to the member is that if there are mill

closures, it will not, in my view, be attributable to the takeback. It may be

attributable to other cost efficiencies and competitiveness issues, but the

timber will still be there. It would be incorrect, in my view, to assign a

figure on the basis of the takeback.

MacPhail: The minister just stood up and said he's of the view that if the

timber has to go 20 kilometres down the road, so be it. He said that in the

context of appurtenancy being gone. Appurtenancy being gone and timber moving 20

kilometres down the road means there will be mill closures. And the Forests

ministry — has it stopped doing the analysis it has done for three decades

about potential mill closures? Is that work no longer being done?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I have heard, in some of the public commentary, the member offer

her views on this matter. It seems clear to me that she referred — and she has

said it again here a moment ago — to another issue that is present in another

bill and has referred specifically to appurtenancy. In fact, after careful

analysis I am told that there are no mills on the coast that possess

mill-specific appurtenancy clauses. So to attempt to make that tie is, I think,

unhelpful or inaccurate at this stage.

The member

has heard me say that I believe there is value associated with directing timber

to its highest and best uses. Does that mean there will be changed opportunity

or different opportunities in the employment sector? I think there will. My hope

is that we can maximize some value-added opportunities and that that will have

benefits. The concern, of course, is the transition in getting there, and the

member has heard my comments around that.

MacPhail: So the ministry has stopped doing an analysis of potential mill

closures? Is that gone? The ministry no longer does that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, the ministry does examine processing facilities with a

view to the available timber supply. But I will say this, with the greatest

respect: the ministry does not take the view that it can determine or will

determine or should determine which facilities will continue to operate and

which will not.

[1720]

In the

latter part of 2001, Dr. Pearse made some specific findings and specific

diagnoses about what the prospects were on the coast. I'm hoping we can do

better. I'm hoping we can do better, more quickly, and I'm hoping we can

initiate some of that reinvestment that has e