Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 246

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

S. Thomson

S. Furstenau

B. Stewart

J. Rustad

N. Simons

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

L. Throness

R. Coleman

N. Simons

S. Thomson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. L. Beare

D. Clovechok

T. Wat

J. Thornthwaite

R. Sultan

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

S. Cadieux

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

(continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

T. Shypitka

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Hunt

S. Cadieux

S. Bond

D. Clovechok

J. Thornthwaite

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Donaldson: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 22, the Forest Amendment

Act, 2019.

Mr. Speaker: And….

Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. And in Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we

call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and

Culture. When that is finished, it will be the Ministry of Education estimates

that will be called in that chamber.

And in terms of

Section C, in the Birch Room, we will continue debating

the estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and when those

finish, we will be calling the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction estimates.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my comments with respect

to Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act, and to continue on with where I

was raising concerns yesterday about the bill — the intrusion into the

business side of the sector, the lack of clarity and understanding of

what constitutes public interest or what will be conditions that will be

applied, the stated intent of the minister in the news release and the

opening comments.

I appreciate, with the time I have left, to continue on and add

some further commentary on the bill. As I pointed out yesterday, as

well, this bill will obviously lend itself very much to an intensive

process through the committee stage because there is so much that is in

the bill that is not defined. We will certainly want to be able to get

clarity on what is meant as far as the intent and what process the

minister will use for implementation and bringing these provisions into

force and into use.

One of the elements in the news release and the process — and it’s

right in the opening headline on the news release — was about

encouraging diversity within the sector. I just want to review the

diversity that is there and how that came into being, because we look at

the many types of processes, policies and programs that are in place to

provide for that — as, for example, the community forest program,

providing those direct benefits to communities.

In 2004, community forests were moved from what was started as

pilot projects, and in 2005, they were moved forward into not just pilot

projects but formal policy. In 2005, 33 new communities were granted

community forests, and today we have 57 community forests in place in

the province.

[1:40 p.m.]

The minister will know six invitations in process for such

communities as Fort Nelson, Cariboo-Chilcotin, the south Island, two

projects in Squamish, Haida Gwaii — invitations that are formally out to

those communities to apply for a community forest. The program continues

to expand and continues to grow.

We’ve had the woodlot expansion program. Today we have over 870

woodlots in place through a sustained program for individual operators

to apply for woodlots. Under those provisions, they can operate up to

800 hectares on the coast, 1,200 hectares in the Interior. With those

over 870 woodlot operations, we have over 600,000 hectares in place in

the province.

First Nations woodland licences, direct awards of tenure to First

Nations. Thirteen direct-award First Nations woodland licences in place,

totalling over 482,000 cubic metres and representing 228,000 hectares

made available to First Nations by direct award.

We’ve had the B.C. Timber Sales program. Approximately 20 percent

of the annual allowable cut, in place through the B.C. Timber Sales

program, to meet the obligations and responsibilities of a market

pricing system, which is key to the maintenance of our obligations under

the softwood lumber agreement and set a market pricing system in

place.

How is that all done? That was put in place through a

revitalization program which had a takeback of tenure from the industry

to facilitate that process and that diversity. But how did that happen?

At that time, it happened with the appropriate consultation directly

with the industry and with compensation for licensees and those

organizations and businesses that were part of that. That’s one of the

very, very significant differences between then and now, in that the

minister, given the sweeping powers that have been granted to him, can

do that, can initiate those processes, but without any provisions of

compensation and without any process of consultation.

The whole bill, as we pointed out yesterday, was brought in

without any consultation with industry. We pointed out the fact that

this was done because they felt that it may have a very significant

impact on the business operations of companies, which might influence

the market, so they didn’t want to do any consultation, as staff advised

us, before introducing the bill. That just points out how very, very

significant this bill can be and the powers that have been directly

vested in the minister’s office to intrude and override into the

business operations of a whole range of companies and businesses within

the sector, given the broad definition of who this all applies

to.

What’s at risk? What’s at risk is the economic contribution of

companies to the communities. The minister knows well the value of the

sector: 140,000 direct jobs; one-in-five jobs in many regions of the

province; 40 percent of B.C.’s forestry jobs in the Lower Mainland;

one-in-ten jobs in the Kootenays; one-in-five jobs in the north coast

and the Nechako; 20 percent of the jobs in the northeast sector. So a

very, very important contribution that the sector makes, and the changes

and the uncertainty that has been generated by the introduction of this

bill puts all of that at risk.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’re not convinced that the bill’s interference in business

transactions, the granting of the sweeping powers to the minister, will

achieve the goals set out in the release about increasing diversity and

things like that, particularly when there’s the stated upfront intention

to diminish perceived concentration in the industry.

What we have here is really just something that is right out of

the NDP playbook in terms of intrusion — that government knows best in

terms of how business transactions should take place — and a sweeping

set of powers that the minister can utilize without any clarity around

what tests will be used, what conditions may or may not be applied….

Every transaction has to go through that process.

Given the lack of clarity, what this bill will do will probably,

in fact, result in exactly the opposite of what is meant to be achieved,

because it’s putting at risk investment. It’s putting at risk sound

business decisions required to keep forestry as a key economic driver in

forest-dependent communities.

All this comes at a time when the sector is facing very, very

significant challenges. I know the minister knows of those challenges,

but it is impacting our sector’s competitiveness in a sector that

competes in a very globally competitive market.

When you look at all of the policy processes that are now being

layered on to the industry, with professional reliance, with FRPA

amendments, which are increasing the prescriptive process and regulation

in forest management — the TSA review processes in both the coast and

the Interior, a very uncertain and badly managed caribou recovery

process, which was a result of a real lack of consultation — it has the

real potential for economic impact and a loss of jobs in the

sector.

There’s the continuing litigation and impacts of the lack of

resolution of the softwood lumber dispute. Now, the minister mentioned

this morning that they took immediate steps to address the softwood

lumber issue, with the Premier visiting Washington right away. I guess

the point that could be made is: how did that go? Clearly, he didn’t go

down there and solve it. He picked up a good cheque, but it didn’t solve

the issue.

We took a lot of steps to address the issues all around softwood

lumber, but as the minister will know and as the members opposite will

know, this is a very, very complex file, with an intransigent U.S.

lumber coalition that is not intent on negotiating and has moved into

the litigation process.

So the assertions this morning that no trips were made and nothing

was done on our part, in terms of solving this, are completely

incorrect. We did make many trips to Ottawa. I went with a delegation to

Washington with Canadian Premiers and met with many of the same people

that the Premier met with.

We had a designate in place to lead the negotiations. We made lots

of effort, but despite all those efforts, we see the continuing lack of

resolution of that file, which is going to continue to create

uncertainty for the industry, and cost, as it moves through the

litigation process.

Declining fibre supply and increased log-delivery costs are making

our province one of the highest places to operate, highest log-delivery

costs. Then there are the taxes that have been layered on and that the

industry is facing.

[1:50 p.m.]

The employers health tax on businesses. The speculation tax

impacts on construction. The gas taxes. All of those taxes are

increasing the cost of operation. All this leads to a very real

uncertainty, which is going to impact investment decisions, impact

business decisions in the sector. It’s really put a chill on investment,

and it’s going to create that huge continued uncertainty in the

sector.

There’s no clarity on what conditions will be used, no clarity on

what tests. With an industry facing challenges, and with an industry

facing decisions that are going to have to be made around adjusting to

declining fibre supplies and other challenges that they’ll have to meet,

this uncertainty is going to really impact those business

decisions.

The fact that government has stepped in and said: “We know best.

We’ll set the conditions….” If the conditions don’t suit what we think,

then there’s the ability to put further conditions on it. If you need to

do the adjustments and the rationalization, that may be a sound business

decision to take, but we’ll have that overriding question mark over

those decisions as this bill gets implemented.

With the concerns that we’ve raised — the concerns with the lack

of clarity, the lack of definition — the chill that this is putting in

place, the fact that if conditions are required under the direction of

the minister to achieve a not-yet-defined interest that may be there, no

indications that any compensation would be provided….

At this point, I cannot support the bill in its current form. More

clarity will have to come through the committee stage. As I said, this

is an approach which is right out of the NDP playbook to re-engineer the

tenure system within the forest sector without a process of engagement

with the sector on something so critical to their future and on business

decisions that will need to be made in the months and years

ahead.

At this point, I will not be able to support the bill. I look

forward to further comments from members of the House and to the

committee stage of the bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to

provide some comments today.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to stand today to speak to Bill 22, the Forest

Amendment Act.

Forests are indeed a part of British Columbia’s identity. For

thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have been relying on the trees,

whether it is the pine and aspen of the Interior or the cedar and

Douglas fir on the coast. For Indigenous people, the forests have

immense cultural and spiritual value, and I would say that for all of

us, spending time in a forest, particularly an intact forest, is a

healing experience.

As essential components of ecosystems, the forests filter water,

and they keep it clean. They support the streams and rivers that salmon

use to spawn, and they provide homes for the myriad of species we have

in this province.

Across the province, our forests support hundreds of jobs,

families and communities. In my riding, Live Edge builds tables out of

windfall trees, using every part of the tree in their beautiful

creations. In Penticton, the company Structurelam builds engineered wood

products that contribute to more carbon-friendly buildings. In central

B.C., mills sustain entire towns. In Port Renfrew, the community relies

upon ecotourism, as they are home to one of the last groves of ancient

coastal old growth. The region is now known as the tall tree capital of

Canada.

To say that forests are important in our province would be an

understatement. But for a very long time, we have been selling out to

large corporations rather than protecting the forests for the people who

truly rely on them.

[1:55 p.m.]

Under the forest policy of the former government, several large

companies were able to take hold of most of the market. Small-scale

businesses and operators have struggled to access the fibre they need,

because it’s not in the interests of these large corporations to sell in

small amounts.

Corporate actors have disposed of and transferred tenure

agreements without government oversight, allowing regional monopolies to

develop and eliminating healthy competition. Government has not been

given the tools to monitor what exactly is happening on the land base, a

land base that belongs to the people of British Columbia, present and

future, and that is unacceptable. B.C.’s forests are a public resource,

and they should be serving the public interest. That’s why my colleagues

and I are focused on restoring the public’s trust and why we are pleased

to support the Forest Amendment Act before us today.

This legislation has three key impacts on the forestry sector in

our province, affecting tenure transfers, changes in control and

information-gathering, which I will discuss more in detail in a moment.

All of these changes work to support a healthy and diverse forest

industry while protecting the public interest.

Prior to this legislation, companies could transfer their forest

tenures without applying for approval. The minister would be notified of

the transfers, but only after the change had occurred. In other words,

there was no capacity for oversight to ensure that the transfers did not

have negative impacts.

Companies used this to build up monopolies, accumulating all the

tenures in a given region and excluding other actors. According to the

legislation before us, companies who wish to transfer their tenures now

apply to the ministry to do so. In considering an application, the

minister must take into account the impact that the transfer could have

on the marketing of fibre in B.C. and on the public interest. If the

transfer were to result in a single owner or a person related to that

owner retaining a proportion of tenures that is detrimental to

competition in the marketing of fibre, the minister must refuse

it.

This means that the public can rely on a diverse forestry industry

regardless of where they are located. For small operators, particularly

for value-added industries, this will ideally mean that they find it

easier to purchase the fibre they need. In turn, the regulatory

environment will be better structured to support a diversity of

value-added products.

For a myriad of reasons, including our history of environmental

mismanagement, climate change and the softwood lumber agreement, our

forestry industry is currently facing many challenges. People are

worried about their jobs. Just last week Canfor announced a temporary

shutdown of its lumber mills in B.C., impacting thousands of

employees.

Reforms like these ones in the Forest Amendment Act will help to

improve the resilience of the sector by building a more diversified

forestry industry. That being said, it is essential that these reforms

go hand in hand with a fundamental shift in environmental and ecological

considerations. We need to log sustainably. That means we cannot log

valuable old-growth hot spots or areas where species are at

risk.

No community in B.C. should have to be worried about their

drinking water quality because of current or proposed logging in their

drinking watersheds, yet this is a reality from one edge of this

province to the other. From Ymir, in the Kootenays, to Youbou, in

Cowichan, I hear from citizens who wonder if their drinking water will

be impacted by logging in their drinking watersheds. In Union Bay, I’ve

just heard from a resident and many others who are concerned about

proposed logging around Langley Lake.

At a time when climate change impacts are growing more frequent

and more intense, we have to start thinking seriously about water

security for ten, 25, 50, 100 years down the road. We need to consider

the broad ecological impacts of our actions on water and air quality, on

soil stability and species diversity. Otherwise, any industry regulatory

changes will be in vain.

The Forest Amendment Act goes on to stipulate that if there is a

change in control in a corporation that holds an agreement, the minister

must be notified. This means that if a company changes its name,

amalgamates or comes under the control of a new operator, the ministry

will be notified. The minister is then required to review the impacts of

these changes.

In this review, the minister must again take into account the

impacts of the marketing of fibre in B.C. on the public interest. Again,

this provides more tools to prevent regional monopolies and to ensure

that the public is able to trust that the activities happening in their

public forests are working in their best interests. Under certain

circumstances, if the minister finds that the change in control violates

one of these considerations, the minister is empowered to take

administrative actions, such as suspending harvesting rights.

[2:00 p.m.]

Through these activities, the minister is further authorized to

gather information from the corporations involved. It’s important that

government knows what companies are harvesting the public resources that

belong to everybody in B.C. It’s important that we know who owns the

companies and whether or not the public is getting the value they

deserve from the resources that belong to all of us. As it stands, the

information we have is far from sufficient in ensuring proper oversight.

In order to make evidence-based decisions, we need to have access to the

evidence.

Think back to the crises in public trust that have developed over

the past several years in our province. This is the same story we heard

at Mount Polley and Shawnigan. It’s the same story we’re still hearing

in terms of coastal old growth. British Columbians across the province

have seen time and time again that government is unable or unwilling, or

sometimes both, to manage the public resources responsibly.

That responsibility cannot simply be rooted in selling raw

resources at the lowest price with little compliance and oversight. That

is not a viable, sustainable economic model, nor does it protect our

public resources for future generations.

I return again to the statement I made earlier. I’m glad to see

the regulatory reforms in the Forest Amendment Act are finally

occurring. Those who depend on our forests for their livelihood deserve

a diverse and resilient forestry industry. Small actors need to be able

to participate. Government needs to have the necessary information and

powers to get involved when the public interest is put at

risk.

I think back to my trip into north and central B.C. in 2017, where

I met with the mayor and councillors of Fort St. James. They talked

about the trucks rolling out, filled with logs, starting at four, 4:30

in the morning every day. They said: “We are the bread basket of British

Columbia, yet all of the fibre leaves our community. We are not getting

any value from this. This isn’t right. It’s coming from our community,

and everything leaves.”

In order for these reforms to be truly effective, ensuring that

our forests are healthy and thriving for centuries to come, we need to

take action now to protect the ecological values of those ecosystems.

Our forests clean the water and air of our province. They support

species, many of which are endangered, and they have immense cultural

values to Indigenous peoples.

We need a long-term vision for what we want our natural resource

sector to look like. We need to consider the impacts of our actions.

Port Renfrew is a perfect example. Logging of endangered, non-renewable

coastal old growth is threatening their thriving ecotourism industry.

Those forests are far more valuable in the ground than they are

harvested and exported.

The challenges that the forest sector is facing are not solely

rooted in international trade agreements or economic fluctuations. If we

are to truly protect the public interest, we must protect not just the

short-term profits of today but the long-term viability of tomorrow and

recognize the services beyond fibre that forests provide to all of us,

particularly water.

I support the legislation before us today, but I remain deeply

concerned about the lack of consideration for ecological values. A

sustainable second-growth forest industry is possible in British

Columbia, but we need to have the political courage to pursue

it.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure for me to rise in this House to represent the

constituents of Kelowna West and the surrounding communities, where many

of the families and people that work in the forest industry are

definitely going to be impacted by what’s proposed here in the Forest

Amendment Act.

I think that the idea that it’s…. I mean, it’s labelled as the

Forest Amendment Act, but underlying all of this is really tenure

expropriation without compensation. I think that that’s where….

Philosophically, I understand that the government wants to have more

control. But the reality is that in the real terms of business,

companies that have been here for generations are being attacked in the

sense that, through acquisition or purchase or whatever, they’ve

acquired tenure for all the right reasons.

A lot of times…. I mean, I know that we hear many different

numbers that are thrown out here about mills that have closed, workers

that have changed through technology.

[2:05 p.m.]

I do support the fact that as a government, we need to incentify

higher and better use of the fibres that we have here in the province.

I’ve been a big supporter of some of the efforts to do that, but I don’t

think that this bill really has anything to do with that.

This is all really about bringing more of what we have in the

rules…. It’s an industry that’s been here. It’s on the walls downstairs,

and outside of the rotunda, you can see it. It’s part of what built

British Columbia.

Are we doing it as well as we could? I think that we’re always

open to improvement. As the member from Cowichan just mentioned, the

fact is that we do want to be concerned about the issues — things that

we could do better. She talks about the absorption of water and all

these types of things.

We can point fingers and do all the things that we can talk about.

I could talk about mountain pine beetle. We know where it started. The

situation is…. Maybe the minister is waving at me to recognize the fact

that he knows exactly where it started. The reality is mountain pine

beetle…. I think, initially, that the assessment, being in a park, where

it started, was that we wouldn’t log. We wouldn’t do the things…. In

retrospect, we would probably do things differently. I think in

retrospect….

I know from having served on a mid-term timber supply committee

here with both the government and members of the B.C. Liberal Party…. We

went out across the province, and we learnt a lot. We learnt about the

war of the woods, something that…. Back in the ’80s, the fact is that

everybody was against the idea of clearcutting without any regard to

protected areas or visual-quality corridors and things like that. We

should be doing things differently.

You know what? The forest companies clearly told us they don’t

want to go back to that. They want to do things in a responsible manner,

and they have been. The fact that this bill here in front of us talks

about the fact…. As if every forest company has done something to wrong

the citizens of British Columbia through their actions.

I’ve been in the forest, and I look at the good work that the

foresters do, the tree planters. I’m sure there are a number of people

here in the Legislature that have had their turn at the hard work of

being out in the hills tree planting.

How the requirements are set out. Are the rules all perfect or

right? I think there’s always room for improvement. I know that after

looking at the devastating impact of mountain pine beetle…. We’ve seen

examples. The committee saw examples of where area-based management, as

a management process, was better than the volume-based situation, which

many of the tenures are managed under.

To be honest, I know that that’s not universally embraced.

However, I think when it comes to crises like mountain pine beetle….

Dunkley Lumber, just south of Prince George, is a good example of

companies that are extremely concerned and responsible and did what they

thought was the right thing: harvest the mountain pine beetle wood

quickly and keep at it until such time as the good standing green timber

is protected.

I know that in my riding…. I happen to have grown up with a family

that has been in the…. They started their own…. It was called Gorman’s

box and lumber. It’s Gorman Bros. now. But anyways, box and lumber. Ross

and John, who started that in the mid-’50s, were building apple boxes.

They struggled as fruit farmers, and they decided that they would build

the boxes out of shooks and ends, etc. They ended up being very

successful.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could we pause for a moment, adjourn the debate for a

moment?

B. Stewart: Yes.

G. Begg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Begg: In the House today, I wish to acknowledge the presence of a friend and

a newly elected member of Surrey city council, Steven Pettigrew. May the

House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I seek leave to make an introduction as well, since we’re in a break

here. Thank you to the member.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Members, for that. I appreciate it very much.

I’d like to introduce three members of the constituency of Stikine,

two of them from Hazelton and now in Smithers. Ed Olson and Megan Olson are

here in the gallery. Also, Anne Donaldson, my wife, from Hazelton, is in the

gallery. Would the members please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: I guess the minister wasn’t really imitating what mountain pine

beetle were doing, with the waving. Anyways, I know that it had a

tremendously detrimental effect on British Columbia forests, especially

in the Interior.

Anyways, I go back to Ross and John Gorman, who started a mill,

out of necessity — a small value-added manufacturer out of a shed,

cutting local trees, and turning it into something. Now, as many know —

I’m sure the minister is aware of this — they’re one of the very high

value-added companies that are in the region. They continue to be

privately owned. They’ve invested heavily, not only in the forest

management and efficiency and trying to make certain that log waste and

utilization are considered. Really, in most people’s minds, they are the

gold standard in terms of what they could be like.

Gormans has gone on to invest in Downie Timber, in Revelstoke —

for which I know that based on some of the things we’re discussing here,

access to timber could be severely impacted. That is a problem for

Downie Timber. They require cedar for that particular mill, and then

they have their plant at Canoe. They employ about 1,200 workers —

usually, when things are good, three shifts a day. So it’s a very active

and an important element of our community, all the forest-dependent

families that are in that community and many other services.

Same with Tolko. They have one of the original sawmill plants in

the Okanagan Valley, S.M. Simpson, which started right downtown, where

it’s kind of located on the waterfront in Kelowna. I’ve had many tours

there. I can tell you that access to local timber is absolutely

essential to keep the almost 200 workers that are there producing what

they’ve been producing for generations, since over 100 years. The

reality is that they take forestry management very seriously.

I do think that one of things that we…. What Bill 22 contemplates

is that the forest companies have not been doing their job in managing

the forests, or not doing it in a manner that is responsible and taking

care of the workers and the families, etc. I know families that are

employed, and they would dispute that. They would come to the defence of

those two companies that I just mentioned because of the fact that they

have long-standing relationships, and they depend on the

coexistence.

There’s no question that it’s more difficult in terms of the

forestry companies being able to make ends meet. I speak about the

Gorman Bros. and the Gorman family. In their particular situation — a

very high value-added producer that makes one-inch dimension lumber,

with a Gorman chamfer or rounded edges — they’re particularly deployed

in a lot of markets around the world. But certainly, in terms of the

U.S. market, they’re faced with this 20 percent duty because of softwood

lumber.

I think if there’s anything that could be done…. I mean, I know

that in this House we’ve had discussions about the softwood lumber

agreement and why we haven’t resolved it. We know it’s a federal

priority, but it affects British Columbia as one of the largest

producing forest regions in all of Canada, and we cannot take a back

seat.

I haven’t heard that the minister or the Premier has been meeting

with every other province on strategies about how we can do it. Of

course we can leave it to the federal government. That’s why we have the

new Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement — right? — because of the fact

that we want to reopen trade agreements. We want to make certain we have

certainty.

That’s part of what really is flawed in Bill 22. It gives the

minister and the ministry sweeping powers to be able to introduce,

regulate, control. These are private businesses. Maybe that isn’t

understood, but private businesses…. There are competitive forces out

there.

[2:15 p.m.]

If we have all the information that Interfor knows, and Canfor

knowing the same, or L&M or some of the other mills that are in the

province…. The reality is that it is competitive by nature, and that’s

the way that it works. The situation is that this bill goes on to

authorize significant authority to the minister, and not necessarily

defined. He has the ability to essentially analyze or scrutinize every

transaction that has to do with forest tenure. That includes whether

companies’ ownership changes, but the situation is that I don’t think

that that part of enhancing and building a strong forest sector is what

we should be looking at.

I think that the member from Cowichan Valley talked about wanting

to protect and revitalize. We want that. We spent a fortune on trying to

find solutions to the problem that mountain pine beetles caused. The

situation is that there is always room to improve. There’s no question

about that.

I think the other thing that is alluded to in here is…. It’s

suggested that during our tenure as government, we didn’t introduce

things like community forests. Of course we did. We introduced community

forests across the province. We helped First Nations with community

forest woodlots. I visited First Nations, and I know that. Take

Mackenzie for instance. The First Nation in that area is instrumental in

getting the woodlot and getting the mills there back in operation after

2008, when the market completely collapsed. Five sawmills, four pulp

mills virtually shut down — no chance. Mayor Stephanie Killam — when I

met with her back in 2009, she was desperate to have diversity in terms

of what else they could do in the community.

We cannot afford to be sending constant messages that there is

uncertainty, that “we don’t trust you,” that “we don’t like what you’re

doing, that “we want to scrutinize,” that we “want to control

everything.” That is what’s wrong with this bill. This bill is all about

a span of control that goes in. It’s pervasive in all sorts of things,

whether it’s labour relations, whether it’s the agricultural land act.

We’re seeing this consistently here.

It’s great to be talking about consultation. But the

consultation…. I know that my colleagues from the Peace River were

asking and asking when the caribou recovery consultation was. “Give us

an update.” It went on for months and months — no updates, no meetings.

We’re still coming back. I think that the situation is that now we’re

faced into…. We’re working…. Agreements have been signed with First

Nations and the federal government to essentially have a prescribed

solution about protecting areas.

I think that probably it’s pretty well known. I think, probably,

that the minister is well aware that predator management is a big part

of the problem. I heard, recently, the statistic about Tweedsmuir Park.

There’s a caribou herd in there, and it’s been protected. No land base

changes or challenges in there, and the caribou have still been

declining. We’ve got to look at what it is. What does a pack of wolves

need to continue its existence on a day-to-day basis? How many moose,

how many caribou? I think that this whole business about consultation is

just lip service to what we’re really trying to get to.

In this particular case, I don’t believe that COFI or the mills

that are going to be impacted by these new regulations have had a fair

ability to present a reasonable alternative. I think that the forest

companies, although they’re tough-minded…. I think they can sit down and

be fair and reasonable and work with what the minister is trying to

achieve without sweeping powers that will be essentially taking their

ability to perform their jobs with certainty.

That uncertainty — I keep going back to this. In business, it’s

about certainty. We only have to go back to 2000, when the housing

market was so red-hot in the mid-2000s. Then all of a sudden, you

started to have the collapse in the fall of 2008 with Fannie Mae and

Lehman Bros. and all the other companies that were impacted. Of course,

there’s an immediate contraction, and the uncertainty was completely

devastating. It caused catastrophic financial stress across the

country.

[2:20 p.m.]

We don’t want any of that type of uncertainty to filter into an

economy. You don’t realize how fragile it is, but I’m hearing that there

are layoffs that are being used to rotate. Part of that is around either

fibre supply or access to fibre. The forest companies know that that’s

an issue.

But the tenure isn’t what got us here, why they have shortages

now. They have to reposition themselves, but they have to have

certainty. These companies, they’ve got…. The softwood lumber agreement.

Anybody knows in a business that 20 percent off what you’re receiving on

lower prices is going to have an impact on jobs back here. Let alone the

fact that we’re now trying to tell them that what they really

own….

The mill is just a plant and equipment. You can disassemble it.

You can sell it off. It’s scrap metal. The real value is in the forest

access. So what we need to do is work with forest companies to do that,

not introduce legislation that takes all of the power away from

companies to make independent or consultative decisions with the

Ministry of Forests.

I think it goes without saying that because of the uncertainty

that’s being presented in Bill 22, it is unlikely that I can support

this in its current format. I look forward to committee….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: I’m happy to work with the minister to help fine-tune it. Maybe a

name change will do it. But anyway, I kid about that. I look forward to

committee stage on Bill 22.

J. Rustad: I’d like to say it’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 22, the

Forest Amendment Act. But quite frankly, I’ve been in this Legislature

now for…. I’ve had the honour of representing the people of Nechako

Lakes for 14 years, and this is probably one of the most egregious bills

that I’ve seen come into this Legislature.

I don’t say that lightly, because I think the goal that the

minister is talking about is something that I could support. I think the

idea of being able to have some diversification within a supply area,

being able to support communities and being able to support First

Nations with volume is something we can all agree on.

But this tool that is used is simply an effort to utilize a way to

have expropriation of volume. Any time there’s a deal, any time there’s

something going on, a change of control, expropriate volume without

compensation. The minister won’t expropriate it himself, or the

government won’t itself. What they’ll do is say that you can’t do the

deal unless you do something to meet public interest.

What does that mean? Public interest. What exactly does that mean?

How does it know when a company has met this lofty goal? Well, you don’t

know, because it’s determined by the minister as to whether or not it’s

met the goal. It’s determined by the minister as to whether or not wood

should go to a First Nation or to a community or be returned to the

government for redistribution, without compensation.

I have a bit of a unique experience in this Legislature, in my

history — my own personal history as well as my family history. I grew

up in the forest industry. My dad moved here to British Columbia in the

late ’40s, and the first thing he did was go do some logging on the

Island. He went up the coast, up the Island and got into a little

logging camp there.

Back then, in those days, you basically couldn’t log unless you

could have a rail line. So the first thing that had to happen is to put

a little rail line up into the woods. Then you got in there, and you’re

falling everything by hand, hauling it out, trying to get it on these

railcars and bringing it down from there. It was tough work. It was

really tough work.

But before that, I want to talk about just how we got here with

our tenure system. This is really what gets to the core of Bill 22. It’s

tenure. We like to think of B.C. in terms of when Europeans came here.

Of course, prior to Europeans, First Nations used timber, used wood for

a variety of purposes for potentially 14,000 years.

But for the purposes of this bill, we’re talking about the last

200 years, which is really when the forest industry as we know it

started in British Columbia. Back then, of course, it was just a few

people looking for big wood.

[2:25 p.m.]

I can remember a story that was once told to me. One of the first

business people, forestry people, that came into the Prince George area

looked around and said, “This area is good for nothing but growing

Christmas trees,” because the trees at the time weren’t big enough. You

couldn’t get at the big wood that was back in the woods, so they ignored

it. It wasn’t until later that the forest industry really picked up in

the Interior. Ultimately, Prince George became the capital of forestry

in Canada because of its large and unique forest industry.

But the tenure system started all the way back in around 1865. One

of the reasons why I’m going to go into this bit of history is that I

wonder if the minister really knows this history. The minister, in his

comments, started off by talking about 2003 and changes in 2003 and

everything that’s gone forward since 2003. Well, the world went a long

ways and a lot of changes way before that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: You know what I’m finding interesting is that I’m hearing a few of

the members opposite actually chime in here. But you know what I find

interesting about this bill? It is one of the most egregious bills that

we have seen in this Legislature, and it’s an assault on our forest

industry. Yet not a single one of them will stand up and defend it. Not

a single one of them, except for a little ten-minute opening by the

minister, and I’m sure he’ll make some political statement here at the

end. Nobody else is willing to stand up and defend it. So as you’re

heckling, just think about that.

Like I say, back in 1865, there was something called the Land

Ordinance Act, which was the beginning of our tenure system in the

province of British Columbia. From there, it was about 1884 when the

province finally decided, “Hey, maybe we should generate some revenue

from this wood,” and they created something called the stumpage system.

Of course, it went through many, many changes and iterations as the area

go-forward.

But the key here was the tenure. Now, you think: why was tenure

such a big deal? Why was it of interest? Well, if somebody was going to

come and make an investment, they needed access to fibre, so it was a

contract. It was a contract that happened between the government, who

owns the Crown timber, and a company or an individual. The contract was:

“I will give you the right to access this wood, and you will create jobs

with it. You’ll make an investment, whether it’s a sawmill or whether it

is logging or whatever the case may be. You’ll do something that will

gain some value from this timber, and then, of course, pay stumpage to

the Crown for that asset.”

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Once again, I hear the Minister of Labour. I know he’s going to

want to get in here, because he’s very keen on forestry, yet he won’t

stand up and speak to this bill, will he? Not once. Not once the

Minister of Labour will. He just likes to chirp in the background, but

that’s just fine.

As time went, of course, our forest industry expanded. But it was

really held back because of technology. As you go forward, how do you

get these logs out of the woods? This goes back to the story from when

my dad first moved here in the late ’40s. You had to use rail because, I

mean, these are big trees. How do you move them around? You had horses.

It was tough for a horse even to take one tree out of the woods. You had

to cut it in pieces to take the thing out, often in difficult

terrain.

It wasn’t until there was technological advancement that suddenly

forestry really started to flourish in our province. I believe it was in

1947 that we actually created something called timber supply areas, as

well as tree farm licences. The reason for this is because as industry

was now starting to grow in the province in forestry, there needed to be

a way to sort of categorize and place where that wood should be coming

from to support the various activities that went on.

Once we got into the ’40s and into the early ’50s, there were

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mills, if not thousands of mills,

that dotted the landscape because now, suddenly, we had an ability to

cut wood out closer to where the timber supply was. So everybody now was

trying to access fibre so they could bring it in and cut it. From there,

it would come into further processing. Those hundreds, if not thousands,

of mills around the area are ultimately what really took off and built

the tenure system and the tenure issue that I think the minister is

trying to get at today.

Once again, it’s that contract between the Crown and a company

that they can have access to wood to generate jobs and ultimately

generate revenue back to the Crown. The Crown eventually got to the

place where it was selling these tenures as well, as part of

it.

[2:30 p.m.]

It wasn’t just saying: “Please, here is some wood. Go out and do

some great things with it.” There became a value associated with

this.

As time went on, back in those days, my dad moved from doing

logging on the Island. He moved up into the Hope area and did some

logging there. Then, finally, he moved up to the Prince George area in

the early ’50s and started a little sawmill. He had access to this

fibre. He went after getting access to cut little pieces of wood here

and there. They’d set up a mill. They’d log here. It was a small, little

mill. At some point, people were even floating logs down the Nechako

River to try to get to a processing facility.

Ultimately, we ended up with a little sawmill out in Bear Lake,

and my family ran that little sawmill for many years. I remember, as a

young child, I would sit on my dad’s knees. We were going out to the

sawmill, and I would learn how to drive that way. I couldn’t work the

pedals — I wasn’t big enough — but that’s how I learned how to drive. It

was down these logging roads.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

By that time — this is now in the ’60s — there was already

significant consolidation that was happening. All of these hundreds, if

not thousands, of little mills that were up all over the place were now

being purchased, being consolidated. With technology changing, people

could cut more wood. They needed access to more wood. So some players

wanted out, some players wanted to grow, and there was this acquisition

of tenure that happened.

It’s interesting to note, Mr. Speaker — and welcome to the chair —

that all of that happened under appurtenancy. All of this consolidation

of wood and components that went on all happened when there was this

trying to make this attempt to have wood within a certain area supplying

certain activities. As this developed and as this moved forward, what we

saw from that consolidation was, once again, the continual advancement

of technology.

Eventually, back in the late ’60s, early ’70s, my family exited

the sawmilling business. We were acquired, and our tenure was

transferred as part of another mill that was growing and moving along.

That technology was really quite remarkable. It was probably in the

early ’70s, I think, when it was really the peak of employment and

activity in the forest sector. Now the pulp mills had come in. There was

a tremendous amount of work and activity there. The sawmills were coming

together, consolidating through…. Hundreds and hundreds of mills had

been lost, but those jobs and that security moved on because the mills

were able to be even more competitive.

Technology changed. Instead of moving things by horse and by rail,

now you could move things by truck. You could start moving larger

volumes by truck. You could start logging and stuff instead of doing

everything by hand. Equipment and stuff started going in. We went from a

place where from back in the early ’70s, a camp of maybe 150 to 200

people was replaced 20 years later by a camp of maybe 15 to 25 people

cutting the same amount of volume. Technology came along — changes, job

losses. Once again, we kept seeing this growth of the forest industry

and the consolidation come through.

I want to make a little point here, because the minister likes to

use numbers. He throws this out there, because they’re the good speaking

lines, even though I’ve challenged him to come out and actually give us

some evidence. I even asked him the question in estimates to come out

with the evidence where he makes the claim that 100 sawmills were closed

under the B.C. Liberals. Well, according to the ministry’s own stats, in

1990 there were 131 sawmills in the province, and by 2000, we saw a 20

percent reduction, and there were 113 mills. You’d think if the

minister’s numbers were true that there wouldn’t be a sawmill left in

the province. Obviously, that isn’t quite accurate.

In 2017, when the NDP took over, there were 69 mills. In 2009, at

the bottom of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, there

were 72 mills. That just goes to show how consolidation has happened

over time. It’s the tenure — what I’m talking about in terms of Bill 22

— that is most critical. In all of this process that has happened over

time, there has been this contract between government and companies. You

have access to this timber. It’s either being bought or it’s being

traded in. Out of that, you create jobs. You create some value from

that, and it creates stumpage from that.

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s a contract that, according to Bill 22, will be ripped up.

If there’s a transfer now of an asset, the minister could say: “I’m

suspending your licence.” The minister could say: “Until you meet the

public interest, you no longer have that right.” It is a ripping up of a

contract that has been around, in place, for over 140 years in this

province. That contract is the ability to have consistent, reliable

access to timber for the operation of forestry.

Now, as I started saying at the beginning, I like the goal of

being able to have more engagement with communities, more engagement

with First Nations. As a matter of fact, what we did back in 2003 is we

actually did a takeback from forest companies. We made a conscious

decision, much to the forest companies’ chagrin, to buy volume to

compensate for that expropriation and make it available. We used it. We

created an MPS system, created B.C. Timber Sales.

We also expanded the community forest program significantly and —

guess what else — we created First Nation woodland tenures — the ability

for First Nations for the first time to have renewable, ongoing tenure,

for communities to have expanded, ongoing, renewable tenure, to connect

communities and First Nations to our forest industry.

The minister, I think, is happy that those things happened. He

wasn’t elected at the time, of course, but I’m sure that he wouldn’t

oppose actions like that. If the minister really wanted to have the

diversification that he’s talking about wanting, he would have the

courage to do the same thing — put the government’s money where its

mouth is, do an expropriation and compensation and make the tenure

reform that he really wants to talk about. Instead, the whole thing is

being done by stealth. It’s being painted in a picture of roses around

some sort of goal while hiding the insidiousness of this bill and the

attack on our history of what actually built our forest industry in this

province.

There are 140 communities across British Columbia that depend on

forestry. There are about 140,000 people in both direct, indirect and

induced jobs in this province for the forest industry. Surprisingly —

some of the people on the opposite side may not realize this — 40

percent of those jobs are actually in the Lower Mainland. Forestry is

not just a rural B.C. issue; it goes right across the province. So

anything that impacts the health of our forest industry has an impact

right across.

There are some other components of history that I want to go into.

But I want to start, as well, by putting out a little bit of a quote

here. I used this quote during question period today, but I think it’s

worth repeating. It is from a conference call that West Fraser had. Mr.

Seraphim stated this: “There are projects that we’ve been thinking about

over the next couple of years, but I think for now, anything major is

definitely on hold.”

There’s a reason for that. It’s because of the uncertainty and

it’s because of the challenges that are being created through bills like

Bill 22. It’s undermining the fundamentals of our forest industry. It’s

undermining what has created the support for families and communities

right across this province. And it’s not just this bill. Whether it’s

Bill 21, whether it is a long list of changes…. Contractor

sustainability, I think, actually is a good thing, in terms of some of

the support there. But professional reliance, even labour changes, the

employer health tax that has been added on, the additional consultation,

the issues of UNDRIP — the list goes on.

What does this mean? What do all of these things mean? Government

is making some changes, and that’s what governments do. They try to

figure out how they want to improve things or shape the world in the way

that they want to see it. But there are consequences to actions. There’s

a cause and effect.

[2:40 p.m.]

What we have seen all through here has been a significant increase

in the cost structure, in the uncertainty and in the inability for our

industry to compete. We saw this in the ’90s. The same process happened

in the ’90s, and the companies were holding on by their teeth to try to

get through.

The NDP government of the day came out and said: “We’re going to

create this jobs and timber accord, because we want to get more jobs out

of our wood. We want to be able to make sure that there’s value that’s

in there for the wood.”

Well, guess what happened. We lost 20 percent of the forestry jobs

in this province; 20 percent of the sawmills were lost. The forest

industry hung on by its teeth until 2001. It took a number of years from

that point on to be able to encourage the forest industry to want to

invest again in British Columbia.

But we did. Part of that was what we did in 2003. Part of that was

the changes to the Forest and Range Act. There was a whole host of

things that we did. What we did is we said: “This isn’t about attacking

an industry. This is about how we respect and support an industry that

was one of the foundational industries of this province and still today

supports over 140 communities.”

You have to have some respect. You have to, as government, show

that you care about those jobs, about those companies and about that

industry. You can’t just go around layering on costs and changing

everything without even consulting or working with the industry. It just

doesn’t work.

What’s happened now is that the industry has become the

highest-cost producer in North America. We’re a global society. They can

get wood from many places — the Americans can. And, for that matter, the

Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other places where we, under B.C.

Liberals, have managed to do significant expansion in the

markets.

We’re in a global, competitive world. So what happens when you

become the highest-cost producer? Well, as long as prices are high, it

goes along. But companies say: “I’m not going to invest in that.”

There’s a saying in the mining industry. “If you want to pick a good

company that’s going to be solid and give you good returns, you pick a

company that’s in the lowest third of costs.” They can weather through

the downturns. They can keep operating. They will invest.

When you’re in the top third — in the case of British Columbia,

now, the absolute top, in terms of the most expensive — as soon as

there’s a downturn, everybody says: “We’ve got to take downtime. We’re

going to have to shut down operations. We’re going to have to curtail

making investments.” Cause and effect.

What we’re seeing today in British Columbia, as we look around the

province, is we’re seeing Conifex taking additional downtime — four

weeks for Fort St. James, three weeks for Mackenzie. That’s on top of

the curtailments that they’ve already done. Canfor announcing additional

curtailments in what they’re doing.

What did Canfor say in the call just today, just this morning?

“The challenge of competitiveness in British Columbia is obviously

severe.” That’s pretty firm language, about as firm as you get coming

from a CEO that knows they have to operate and work with the

government.

There’s an interesting little comment from the same company in

their call, from Canfor, that said: “B.C. saw weakness in its earnings,

but Alberta, U.S. and Europe generated solid financial returns.” Why is

that? It’s because we have become uncompetitive under this government.

We have become a place where companies are now looking anywhere else but

British Columbia to invest, to try to find a way to get a

return.

I’m talking about companies. But the reality is that that’s

workers. That’s families. Those are those 140 communities around the

province that depend on our forest industry. On top of what I just said,

they also noted that on July 1, the stumpage is expected to increase,

adding to the severe situation that they’re facing, the severe

pressure.

[2:45 p.m.]

Is that the legacy that this minister wants for British Columbia

and the forest industry? I think not. I mean, I have talked to the

minister. I know the minister. We’ve worked together now in this

Legislature since 2009, from opposite sides. I honestly believe that the

minister wants to see a healthy forest industry. They want to see jobs.

We share in those values.

This is not going to do it. This is creating the opposite effect.

It’s a cause and effect, coastal revitalization….

You know, one of the things that the minister has talked about

wanting to do and that also plays into this uncertainty created from

Bill 22…. “We want to reduce the number of log exports. We want to

increase the amount of waste fibre that can be utilized.” I share those

goals. I think that those are great goals to do.

Here’s the reality of what’s happened. Western Forest Products had

their call this morning from their Q1 results. What are they doing?

They’re looking at curtailing their mills on the coast. Why? Because

they can’t get timber. Log prices are too high. The costs have gone up,

and they have to curtail operations. They don’t have the logs to keep

operating.

The company mentioned, as well, that they’re going to have to

start up their log export program again in the second quarter of the

year — expected to start shipments in May. The company said that the

decision to restart the raw log export has everything to do with

stumpage and increased costs of logs. Despite the coast revitalization

plan, the company will continue to make decisions based on trying to

make a profit, trying to stay open.

I know that’s not what the minister wants to see happen. I talked

to him about it, and of course, we canvassed this greatly in estimates.

So what’s the answer? Is the answer to add on more cost, more

uncertainty, more challenges for the industry, more regulation, more

restrictions — driving up costs and creating more challenges? It’s clear

that what we have seen from these actions by this government is a

negative response in our forest industry.

I mentioned in question period today and want to re-mention it —

that in British Columbia since 2009, which was the very bottom of the

Great Recession, our province saw just under 10,000 gains, jobs, in the

forest industry. That was the first time since the 1970s that this

province has seen sustained job growth in our forest industry. So 20

percent reduction in job growth under the NDP.

And what’s happened since 2017? We’ve now seen 3,000 job losses,

and that was only to March. The numbers in March saw another 2,000 jobs

lost in the resource sector. I’m not sure how many of those were in the

forest industry. The projections for April are the same — more declines

in the resource sector in terms of jobs.

The minister, during question period, said that we’re starting to

see the curve go up. Well, those are rather lofty words considering the

evidence is exactly the opposite. We went from a place where our forest

industry was thriving — was competitive, where there was investment in

the industry and jobs were growing — to exactly the opposite. And it’s

not just me that’s saying it. The forest companies themselves have come

out saying the exact same thing.

West Fraser did their conference call last week, I think, and the

CEO had this to say: “But what gives us the greatest concern are the

myriad of policy changes that the B.C. government is planning to

implement that could potentially impact the B.C. forest industry.” He

went on to say: “Our company has invested in excess of $600 million in

British Columbia over the last several years to modernize our business

and to be able to fully extract the value from a declining timber

resource due to the impact of the mountain pine beetle. We have been

planning for this eventuality for more than 15 years.”

[2:50 p.m.]

I see my time is running short, Mr. Speaker. I am the designated

speaker for this bill.

You’ve got a company that has had a very long history that is

committed to being in British Columbia, whose head office is in Quesnel

and very much understands how industry works. Here they are in a

situation where they’ve said they’re holding off on making any more

investments. Uncertainty is mounting. The costs are mounting. And quite

frankly, they’re looking elsewhere.

The CEO went on to say: “What we have difficulty planning for are

government policy decisions that impact industry competitiveness and

competition. We believe that policy proposals such as the caribou plan

and Bill 22 legislation could potentially impact the ability of B.C. to

compete in a very competitive global environment.” Some pretty stark

words once again from a company that depends on access to fibre from the

Crown.

The chill that has happened in this province because of the

policies of this government is remarkable. As I say, I grew up in the

forest industry. I was around it, and I’ve done just about any job you

can think of — everything from a green chain in a mill to planting

trees. I’ve gone out and done recces. I’ve found the wood. I’ve gone out

and laid it out. I’ve cruised it. I’ve gone in and logged it, planted

it. I’ve gone in afterwards and done stocking standards. I’ve done

herbicide treatments. I have done the whole myriad of forest jobs to

take a tree through to the end.

I haven’t been a shop steward like the Minister of Labour, but

like I say, maybe the Minister of Labour could enter into this debate

and provide his perspective.

When you see these challenges, it really worries me. It really

does. Let me explain why. I see a company like West Fraser, whose roots

are British Columbia, that invests in British Columbia and wants to see

success in British Columbia, and they’re going elsewhere. “West Fraser

recognizes that we compete on a global market, and the latest policy

initiatives from the B.C. government further reinforce the importance of

diversification strategy.” They’re going out of the province. They’re

moving away. What will that mean for the forest industry? No, they’re

not moving away. They’re obviously staying with their operations in

British Columbia, but they’re not looking at any investments in this

province.

That’s tough, because when you want to have…. There are going to

be some challenges with the pine beetle, the challenges that are coming

up with that. There’s going to be a situation where there’s going to be

some consolidation. The likely result and the cause and effect of a bill

like this is that the companies will just sit on their wood and wait for

a change. If they have to take downtime or have to close because they

can’t continue operating in this environment, instead of doing a deal

and seeing that wood being able to support jobs, they’ll just decide to

sit on it. That’s not going to be healthy for jobs. It’s not going to be

healthy for workers or communities, their families.

It’s sad, because like I say, I grew up in this industry. My

family was fed by this industry.

There are other ways to go about doing what the minister wants to

do. There are ways to do this without the aggressiveness, without the

assault. I’d be happy to sit down with the minister and try to work

through those ways. After all, his Premier said he wanted to work

together. He wanted to find ways to bridge differences. Well, here’s a

forestry file that matters. It just so happens it matters to almost all

the B.C. Liberal ridings, not a lot of NDP ridings. But it’s an industry

that matters, and it’s an industry that, quite frankly, we could do a

lot better on.

Now, were B.C. Liberals perfect? We made some mistakes. No

question.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: We’ve got another member of the NDP that would like to join this

debate.

Have the courage to stand up and defend the bill.

Interjection.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, he is learning. And the comment he was wondering about was

the comment I said where 40 percent of the jobs are in the Lower

Mainland. You’re right. They are. Now, it just so happens that many of

those jobs are in B.C. Liberal ridings in the Lower Mainland, but that’s

beside the point. We can go into that another day.

Like I say, there are other ways to achieve what the minister

wants to achieve here. Yes, the government would have to put some money

on the table. Government would have to sit down and negotiate with the

companies and engage with the communities and the First Nations and

develop a strategy to have targets within an area and work towards that

over time.

That can happen. It doesn’t have to happen like this — through a

back door, where it’s lipstick on a bill, quite frankly, that is

designed to undermine the private sector and competition and the way

that our forest industry was built from the ground up.

I was looking at some numbers from COFI. I know the minister had

an opportunity to speak to COFI, and he probably saw this report.

Hopefully, he an opportunity to read it. I look at the jobs across the

province in my riding and in his riding. We’re in the area that’s

considered to be the North Coast and Nechako region. Nineteen percent of

all employment is forestry-related.

In the northeast region, 20 percent is forestry-related; in the

Cariboo, 22 percent. There are 20,000 jobs in the Thompson-Okanagan

area, and 21,000 jobs on Vancouver Island, in the coastal region. Ten

percent of all the jobs in the Kootenays is forestry. Like I say, 40

percent of all those jobs in the forest industry are in the Lower

Mainland and in the southwest region.

What is in the response to the challenges? What we have seen is

lumber prices are down from the recent highs. U.S. housing starts are

soft. The softwood lumber agreement continues to hurt our industry,

without an end in sight, without plans and strategies from this

government. We’ve got timber supply coming in.

The industry is stressed over whether China is going something.

Who knows the next step China will do? They just announced today that

they’re going to start curtailing the ability for us to export hogs —

not as in hog fuel but as in the pigs for food. Of course, there’s

additional uncertainty due to wildfires. All of this stuff is piled on.

Industry is afraid. They’re pulling in their horns.

What’s government’s response? Not a hand out to help, not a way to

reach out and say: “We respect and support the industry. We want to find

ways to work and strengthen you.” No, no. Added-on regulation, added-on

threats, added-on egregious attacks like Bill 22 without engagement or

consultation. It really does bother me when I think about our industry

and the state that’s gone on.

What it seems to me is the NDP really don’t understand the

industry at all. I know they’ve got people in the ministry. John Allan,

the deputy minister, has obviously spent a career in and around the

forest industry. There are many good people in the ministry. I had a

great honour of being the minister for four weeks.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Health laughs. I hope he gets a chance to get up

and speak to this bill too.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, it was four weeks. You know what? I treasured that four

weeks, even though half of it was dealing with wildfires.

Regardless of that, as I said, they don’t seem to understand the

challenges that are happening in our industry. They don’t seem to

understand the industry itself. They’re certainly acting as if they know

best, rather than working with the industry and trying to figure out how

we take it from being the most uncompetitive industry in North America

to being in that bottom third, to be in a position where we can compete

and be successful.

I’ll give you an example of what could be done. On the Island, in

the heart of the coastal revitalization — and Western, in their

comments, talked about this — stumpage is up 118 percent, with another

increase scheduled to come in July. Those kinds of costs are

unsustainable. There will be an effect.

[3:00 p.m.]

It won’t be nice. It’ll be a negative effect, because it’s one of

two things: either companies can’t afford to log, and the log supply

will actually decrease and mills will have to take downtime or maybe

even close, or they’re going to have to export more to find a way to

cover the costs — neither of which is what the minister wants to see

happen.

I guess maybe that’s what the Premier said when he was talking to

the truck loggers convention, when he said: “We recognize that there may

be unintended consequences, and we’ll have to try to work through them.”

Well, here are some consequences.

I find it interesting. You know, I talked about the coastal and

the coastal revitalization plan that’s been in place. What are the early

results? I asked the minister in the estimates process: “What are your

metrics? What are you going to be measuring?” He stumbled to find out,

stumbled to even come up with answers. He said: “Well, I guess jobs and

log exports and these types of things.” It wasn’t even a set plan. It

wasn’t even a set way to measure as to whether or not you’re able to

achieve the goals and your targets that you had in policy. That’s pretty

sad.

Here’s another thing that’s happening because of what’s going on,

on the coast. Cutting permits are something that companies need to apply

for on a regular basis. Once again, it’s the tenure. This is Bill 22.

This is the attack on the tenure.

The monthly average of cutting permits on the coast, to get to the

14½ million or 15 million cubic metres that are harvested on an annual

basis, is about 2.5 million. So 2.5 million metres of wood is applied

for every month to try to get to that, on average. It drops; it varies;

it goes around. But what we’ve seen since the coastal revitalization is

almost a 50 percent drop in the number of permits. It’s going to be

interesting to see what happens when that wood runs out. That’s not

going to be a pretty picture, and that’s on this minister’s

watch.

On top of that, as we’ve seen that side of things, we have seen a

dramatic increase in the percentage of logs exported, because they need

to cover the cost. If that’s coastal revitalization, quite frankly, I

would say maybe go back to the drawing board and rethink that

plan.

The downloading of costs to companies…. I agree that the pulp

mills are going to struggle. They’re going to need fibre. They’re going

to need chips. We’ve got to find a way to be able to get that residue,

that residual logging waste, to those pulp mills, no question. But if

you do it at the expense of your solid wood industry, you’ve got real

problems coming. If they start pulling back, now your primary source of

chips starts dropping off, and pulp mills will struggle big-time — cause

and effect.

It’s a real challenge. You know, at the time when stumpage has

gone up 118 percent, guess what. The price of a 2-by-4 in China has

actually dropped 5 percent. China is a very important market. Chip

prices have gone up, but just a little, over that period of time. You’re

in a situation where you’ve got a very, very challenged

industry.

What I find interesting, as well, is that in British Columbia —

and I think this is something that both sides of the House could agree

upon — we have some of the highest, if not the highest, environmental

standards anywhere in the world. The way we work, our sustainability….

By the way, when sustainability first came in, in the early 1900s, as a

concept of our forest industry in British Columbia…. Sustainability and

those environmental standards is something we should all be proud about.

Even with this, there is this desire to do this assault and attack and

protect more areas.

I want to touch on caribou for a moment, because I think about

this protection and those environmental standards that we have.

Ultimately, when you’re talking Bill 22 and the attack that this is

creating on the forest industry, you have to look at the holistic

approach. You have to look at the cumulative impact of all of these

actions that have happened.

On the caribou file, up in the northeast, there’s somewhere

between 300,000 and 500,000 cubic metres that are going to be lost

annually in this protected area. Of course, that raises a big concern.

West Fraser mentioned it in their call. Many other people are talking

about it.

[3:05 p.m.]

I looked at it, and I thought: “What would that be across the

province? What would that be if all of the caribou habitat, all of that

critical habitat, were to be treated exactly the way the northeast is

going to be treated? What’s that impact?”

You’re talking about a 15-million- to 20-million-cubic-metre drop

in AAC out of the interior of the province of British Columbia. Those

aren’t my numbers. That’s the analysis that industry has done on a

worst-case scenario. That’s a 40 percent reduction in the AAC in the

province of British Columbia in the Interior.

Think about all those 140 communities. In the community of

Revelstoke, 100 percent of their timber supply area will be gone if all

of their caribou habitat is protected. Other supply areas will be

between 50 and 70 percent of the timber-harvesting land base

gone.

So what happens? Now you come along with Bill 22. You’ve had this

impact. Companies need to start looking at closing doors, selling

operations, downsizing of the forest industry. And now you’re saying to

them: “Your primary asset is worthless.”

Timber across this province and the allocation of timber, the

tenure across this province, is worth over $10 billion. That is a

significant amount of money. That is the basis of companies investing in

this province. That’s the basis of creating jobs and supporting

communities and families. That value may have just gone to zero, or some

number — certainly lower.

As an asset, if you’re not able to trade it, if you’re not able to

purchase it and not able to make a deal without conditions attached….

Maybe it’s losing a sawmill. Maybe it’s taking back a tenure or handing

timber over to something else. The minister, quite frankly, has very

broad abilities under this bill to be able to set those kinds of goals.

How do you put a value on that asset when you don’t know what you

actually have or what you can actually deal with?

Suddenly now companies that need to raise money, that want to

invest in mills, are seeing that big drop in their primary asset, that

contract that was created over 140 years ago and has continued for many,

many, many decades — that contract that you have the right to harvest if

you’re going to create jobs. It’s being ripped up.

It’s unfortunate. I know the minister will put some lipstick on

this bill and talk about it in a very different perspective. That’s

fine. That’s politics. That’s the way it is. But this is how industry

looks at it, and that’s what’s most important, not the political

bantering that goes on in this chamber.

Ultimately, it’s industry that creates jobs, not government. It’s

industries that support communities and families, families like mine and

families like many throughout this province.

I’m very concerned. When you look at the pine beetle drop, when

you look at this kind of a bill, when you look at what’s happening with

the caribou, I’m very concerned for the future of the forest industry in

the province of British Columbia, for my riding, for my

communities.

Now, I agree. If we can find ways — and there are better ways to

do this — I’d be happy to sit down and work through and support a bill,

a bipartisan bill that we could do. But this approach, quite frankly, as

I say, is offensive.

You know, I think back on, whether it’s communities in my riding

or in my time in forestry…. On top of doing all the jobs in the bush, I

also did forest planning, forest development planning. I looked at

timber supply analysis. I’ve done watershed analysis. I’ve looked at all

aspects of that side of the industry as well, and I’ve never seen the

industry in a situation that we are today, even at a time when lumber

prices are still at $340 U.S.

It’s remarkable. Can’t even make money at $340 U.S. anymore. It

wasn’t that many years ago when that break-even price was around $200 or

$210, maybe even below $200. In one short period of time, two years,

costs have gone absolutely through the roof. It’s the challenge that we

have. It’s a challenge that’s been created.

[3:10 p.m.]

It does make me wonder, as I say, whether or not the minister

understands truly what he’s doing, what he’s creating here. I know that

industry has written him. I know the industry has expressed their

concerns in strongly worded language, and I’m sure the minister is

considering all those factors. But I also know it’s very hard for

government to back down from a bill like this.

If the minister was that confident in this bill, and if this

government was that confident in this bill, why are they not putting up

any speakers? Why are they not up defending this policy? It’s a critical

piece of policy. It’s a cornerstone of what the minister is trying to

do, Bill 22. Yet no one is getting up to speak to it. Are they worried?

Is government worried that somebody might say something that would

create a challenge from industry? Is that why they’re not putting up any

speakers?

Or does nobody over there care about the forest industry enough to

want to get up and talk about it? You do wonder. But when you look at

some of these impacts…. Even if the caribou impact is half of what the

industry is worried about, it hits a tipping point. You start seeing

pulp mills go down and start seeing significant restructuring and losses

in the industry. I know that’s not what the minister wants, but that’s

going to be his legacy if they carry on with the path that they’re

doing.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member from the Sunshine Coast refuses to get up and defend

this bill, and I understand why, because he’s embarrassed about it. But

that’s okay. He’ll get a chance if he really wants to get up and talk

about it. But he likes to heckle. He likes to chirp on about these sort

of things, and that’s fine.

If you look at the stats, and if you were here earlier for the

speech, the longest stretch of gains in forestry jobs since the 1970s

was under the B.C. Liberals from 2009 to 2017, and it’s reversed and

dropped now under the NDP. By the way, those aren’t my numbers. That’s

the Ministry of Forests numbers. They’re on the Ministry of Forests

website.

I do look at this as being a potential tipping point and a real

challenge for our industry. I’m very concerned about where our industry

will go.

On top of Bill 22 and on top of the challenges that are here, I

want to talk just for a minute about mountain pine beetle. Obviously,

there’s an impact, a downfall, that’s coming with the mountain pine

beetle. But let’s look at history, as I did the history with tenure. The

mountain pine beetle epidemic started in the 1990s. The mountain pine

beetle has been existing in our forests forever. As long as there have

been pine trees, there has been mountain pine beetle.

What changed in the 1990s was clusters of pine beetle started

expanding and growing. There was a cluster in particular that was of

great concern to the industry. The industry went in and started doing

selective logging, falling and burning. It did approaches to try to

contain this pine beetle epidemic. If we had accelerated some harvesting

back then, maybe they could have done more.

The big problem was a little place called Tweedsmuir Park, in my

riding. In Tweedsmuir Park, because it’s a park, they weren’t able to go

in and do many of the forest activities that we would have liked to. The

pine beetle epidemic festered and grew in this park. It grew to a point

where industry went to government and said: “You’ve got to take action.”

And the ministry itself went and laid out what was going to be a big

fire. They had a beautiful high weather condition. It was tinder dry. It

was stable. It would have been a big fire.

Now, burning in a park is pretty controversial, especially back in

the ’90s. But that was the only way that we were going to slow down the

pine beetle epidemic. The ministry went up to the minister and said: “We

want to light it up. We need to do this for the health of our forest.”

The minister at the time thought it was too big a decision for him to

make, and he took it to cabinet. And cabinet turned the ministry down.

It turned the ministry down because they were worried it was going to be

too big a fire, and they didn’t want the political fallout of having a

big fire in a park.

[3:15 p.m.]

So they said: “Wait for it to cool down. Wait for the temperatures

to cool down, and then you can have a fire.” So they did. They tried in

the fall, and of course, the fire was ineffective. The next year, waves

of pine beetle came out of that park — waves of pine beetle.

Pine beetles are the size of a grain of rice. They’re tiny. Yet so

many of these pine beetles were flying at one time, they actually showed

up on Doppler radar. These waves came out, and the epidemic spread

completely out of control. By the time we had an opportunity to get in

there, in government, to start making decisions, all we could do was try

to attack the edges that we could, to slow it down and try to salvage.

That was it.

The falldown because of the pine beetle and the mills that are

going to be lost is on this minister’s head. He didn’t make the

decision, but it was the NDP that did.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

J. Rustad: I am talking about Bill 22. I thank you for the direction,

Speaker.

The reason I’m talking about this is because of what Bill 22 does

to tenure and the impacts that is going to have and the compound impact

on our forest industry. The pine beetle is one piece that has that

cumulative impact that this government needs to wear, because they

created it. They’re creating it again with Bill 22. They’re creating the

same kinds of problems and challenges.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Yes, you did.

The member from Sunshine Coast doesn’t believe it. Go back and

look at history. It is well documented.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Let’s talk about the current bill, Members.

J. Rustad: I enjoy hearing the heckling coming from the members opposite that

refuse to stand and defend an undefendable bill.

N. Simons: It’s called “indefensible,” if you want to use the right

word.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the member from Sunshine Coast. It is indefensible,

and I agree with him entirely that this bill is indefensible.

That challenge from the pine beetle is something that the province

is having to live with. It’s one of the reasons why there is

consolidation, one of the reasons why there are going to be some

closures and there have been some closures. It’s one of the reasons why

Bill 22 is going to cause such grief. As West Fraser said, they planned

for this. For 15 years, they’ve been planning for this. Now it’s thrown

completely in chaos. It’s really a shame.

Like I say, I grew up in this industry. In my riding, 30 to 40

percent of the activity is tied to forestry. We’re ground zero. Quesnel,

the Cariboo and my riding are ground zero for that government’s faults

from the ’90s. What I’m worried about is we’re going to be ground zero

again for what this government’s policy is.

Like I say, whatever the minister is trying to do with this…. You

know, he stood up and talked about it. There are other ways to do it. I

think there are other ways to be able to achieve public interest and the

test, as he said. But I tell you what doesn’t work: that is, to have

staff or others quietly calling companies and suggesting that they

should be giving up timber to First Nations. They can do that, of

course. You can ask them to do that. You can ask them to do anything.

But what Bill 22 does is give them a hammer and say: “If you don’t, we

could suspend your licence if you’re going to make a trade or a

deal.”

I know the minister doesn’t view this bill as being that way, but

that is how industry views it. That’s how anybody else outside of the

political realm views it. The minister can put a spin on, that he’s

trying to help communities, that he’s trying to help First Nations and

he’s trying to create balance and all of this kind of stuff. There are

ways to achieve that, just like we did back in 2003. This isn’t it. This

is not it.

[3:20 p.m.]

This assault that I am seeing on the forest companies…. Could you

imagine? Forestry is a contract between government and companies to

access fibre, to access the resource.

You know what else is a contract? You know what else is out there?

Why don’t we talk about mining? Why don’t we talk about the minerals

that are in the ground? That’s a resource. That’s a contract between

government and a company, whether it’s coal or metal mining or even

aggregate. What about oil and gas? Those are resources that are the

Crown’s that’s a contract between the Crown and a company to

operate.

Let’s even go a little bit further, whether it’s range,

guide-outfitters, trappers, other activities on the land base — are they

next in terms of how government is going to take a heavy hand to

structuring and looking at companies and the way companies operate and

the way they can trade and do business? Is there too much concentration

in the oil and gas sector, so they’re going to have to try to socially

re-engineer it? Is there too much concentration in the mining

sector?

Like I say, I get the goals, but this is a very dangerous

precedent in terms of the approach for trying to achieve those goals. It

is wrong, plain and simple. It will be the equivalent of expropriation

without compensation, of tearing up of a contract.

I wonder if the minister has really looked at this, if the

government has really considered this in their options. What other

options did they consider to try to achieve this, or is this really what

they’re trying to do? Is this really the goal of this

government?

You know, you look at what they’re doing in trying to force people

to be unionized and trying to force people to not even be declared

people under an agricultural act. Maybe this Bill 22 is doing just that.

It’s what they want to do. They want to have complete government control

and oversight. You know, for that matter, maybe they just want to

nationalize the forest industry. I don’t know. Maybe that’s where

they’re going. It’s hard to say. But they sure seem to be going a long

ways with this bill to achieve something that could have been achieved

with a much simpler process.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the Minister of Labour giving a few comments in there

while I got a chance to have some water. I know he’s eager to get up and

stand and talk about this bill, but he won’t, just like nobody else over

on that side will.

Bill 22. I think about the example that the minister gave and

Houston. Houston’s in my riding. There’s a situation where, because of

declining fibre and because of the mountain pine beetle and because of

the problems that this government created in the ’90s….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The minister laughs because he doesn’t even realize or understand

the problems that were created and how they were created.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: It is facts. I was working in the industry. You weren’t, Minister,

not at that time. As a matter of fact, I had many conversations with the

bureaucrats that were working with industry, which is why I know it’s

fact. It’s not making it up. It’s not politics.

We’re in a situation where two companies, West Fraser and Canfor,

decided they couldn’t carry on with their operations and be competitive

and survive in Houston. I went to HFP, and I said: “Look, is there

anything we can do? Is there anything we can do to keep you operating

because I want to see the mills stay, both mills stay operating in

Houston.” They came to me and said: “The quality of the wood is

deteriorating too much. We cannot keep this up at a sustainable rate. It

is inevitable that there will be a closure. So by doing this deal, we

are able to strengthen their core asset, which is in

Quesnel.”

Canfor, I went to talk to them, and they said the same thing: “We

cannot sustain the mill in Quesnel. There’s nothing we can do. It will

have to close at some point. So we’re making the deal so that we can

strengthen and sustain our mill in Houston.” So they did the deal. I

wasn’t happy about it. I didn’t want to see the mills close.

The community came to me and said they don’t want to see the wood

go, whether it’s to Smithers in the minister’s riding or over to Fraser

Lake. They wanted to see that wood stay within their community, to

create jobs in the community. I agree. I think it would have been

good.

[3:25 p.m.]

The reality is you have to have a company that wants to build a

mill. You have to have a company that has tenure, that has the contract

and has the value and confidence to be able to do that. This bill

destroys that. It destroys that. And for what?

There is a better way to be able to expand community forests.

There is a better way for being able to have wood in First Nations’

hands, to have that connectivity between communities and the forest

industry. There are better ways to do that. We do not need to have this

kind of an egregious assault on the private sector.

I would support working with the minister to do those things. But

alas, politics, unfortunately, divides us in our ability to be able to

put forward good pieces of legislation, and this is what we ended up

with — Bill 22.

It is sad, as I said before, when I think about it. I know for a

fact that government is interested in tenure, that they’re interested in

tenure reform. They want to see smaller mills. They want to see fewer

shifts. They want to see more of these out and around. I get that they

don’t understand economics, that they’ve never signed the front side of

a paycheque.

The reality is simple. Our industry is very fragile at the moment.

We’re facing tremendous uncertainty from the U.S. That will play out in

the courts over time. Unfortunately, there may have been a window to do

a deal, but that was missed. We’re facing potential uncertainty with

China, the second-most important market for British Columbia

wood.

We’re facing uncertainty in terms of tenure through this bill;

uncertainty in terms of what that fibre and future is, potential land

claims and UNDRIP — the approach that government is taking, creating

divides in the community between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

We’re facing tremendous cost increases at a time when companies are

struggling.

I know the minister would like to see jobs increase in this

province. I know he’d like to see more value. People won’t invest in

this province, not with this. The chill on the investment community is

unbelievable. Government just seems to be blind to it. They think that

we’re just playing politics in talking about it. We’re not.

You can just look at it. As West Fraser said, their investment

decisions that they were looking at are on hold. Canfor is the same way.

Other companies in the province are the exact same way. Yet they’ll take

their money and invest in other jurisdictions, because they have

certainty and they know that they can get a return.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour is talking about Canadian companies

investing in 50 mills down across the line. I get it. Maybe he doesn’t

understand why.

When you cannot compete in the province of British Columbia, when

there isn’t an opportunity to invest, when the environment is negative

and unwelcoming, you go where you can to make money.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the fact that some of the members opposite are

getting exercised over this, but the reality is that money is driving

out of this province.

Has there been a new mine opened in two years under this

government? Has there even been a start, construction, of a new

mine?

Interjection.

J. Rustad: That was B.C. Liberal. That was built under B.C.

Liberals.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Sorry, which one? Red Mount. Got approval. There are others that

have got approval. Has it got a shovel in the ground? Have you gone and

done a ribbon? Have you gone in construction?

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have a debate through the Chair, please.

J. Rustad: I’m sorry, hon. Chair. Through you, I look forward to seeing it.

Maybe there will be one. Maybe they will be able to raise the capital to

do it.

What I do know, though, is that companies are looking anywhere

else other than British Columbia to invest capital. The forest industry

is exactly the same. Nobody is investing in British Columbia, except for

the bare minimum.

I guess that’s not quite true. There was one investment down in

the Kootenays. Of course, there’s the pulp mill investment with a

sweetheart deal, which is what the coastal revitalization is all about —

getting fibre to it. But the reality is that companies are very

reluctant to invest in this province, and they’re having a tough time

raising money.

[3:30 p.m.]

Look at LNG, for example. I know it’s not related to Bill 22, but

it is related to Bill 22 because of the ability to raise

capital.

You’ve got TransCanada wanting to go forward. You’ve got a

gold-star client that receives the gas. They’ve got a gold-star supply.

They’ve got a pipe to prove in 40 years. They’ve got to figure out how

to raise the money. They can’t go to the bank, because the bank won’t

give it to them.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s talk about Bill 22. I’m sure the member has lots of material

to talk about Bill 22.

Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the direction, hon. Chair.

Bill 22 is really about this assault on our industry. If the

minister…. I know he’s going to get a chance here shortly, because I’m

almost wrapped up, in terms of the comments I want to make.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I know the minister will have a chance to stand up, and he’ll talk

about the lipstick that’s on this pig. He’ll talk about how this is

going to help diversify and how this is going to meet the public

interest, that it’s going to prevent any increased concentration and

density. I know he’s going to get up and talk about all those

things.

You know what? I agree. Some of those things would be good to try

to achieve. But this bill does not do it.

I think what I’ll close by saying is this. When you grow up in the

forest industry — when you work in it, you plant trees, you watch it

grow, you log, you mill, you manage the forest — you have a real

appreciation. I also live out on Klukas Lake in my beautiful riding of

Nechako Lakes. I go out walking in the forest all the time. I appreciate

the wildlife. I appreciate what our industry and what our province

has.

There’s so much dynamic nature to our forests and our industry.

But when I walk through there, I’m also proud. I’m proud of the fact

that through our forest industry, we’ve created a great province. Now,

there are lots of other things that have contributed to it, but forestry

is always the backbone. It was always the foundation of so many

communities. Today it is still the backbone of those

communities.

It’s under attack, and that makes me sad. It makes me really sad.

I think about the families, whether it’s in Fort St. James or Fraser

Lake or Vanderhoof, the families on the south side of François Lake,

Grassy Plains, families up in Granisle or Houston, Burns Lake. So many

people are connected to the forest industry, and it’s hurting. They’re

hurting, and they’re worried.

This government has done nothing to alleviate those concerns.

They’ve done nothing to stand up for the workers and the families and

for what this forest industry needs, which is some confidence and some

help. Not more taxes. Not more regulation. Not more uncertainty. Not

assaults on the very fabric of our private sector and our

history.

When I first got into politics, back in 2005, in provincial

politics, I used to go out in my riding and hold round tables. Forestry

was a topic, and I’d do this for a number of years. I’d invite people

in, and we’d have this topic, and we’d talk about the challenges we were

facing. The pine beetle epidemic. The eventual downfall that was coming.

How we’re going to need to adjust. What we needed to do around

this.

People were engaged. They wanted to come out and engage in these

conversations. Why? Because they knew it mattered to them.

Just in Burns Lake the other day, just yesterday, I think it was,

or the day before, the chief forester was out in Burns Lake talking.

They’re going through a real challenge because the timber supply is

dropping off dramatically there. They’re trying to figure out how to

fight to keep a mill going, how to fight to keep a mill in their

community.

I’ve been fortunate, in that the communities I represent haven’t

lost all their mills. Forestry is still part of it. But some of my other

colleagues have been in communities where they’ve lost their only

mill.

[3:35 p.m.]

The devastation that was to those communities, the challenge that

those communities went through, not just because of revenue and services

but because people moved away. There was loss of hope in the community.

There are still some logging jobs, but it wasn’t the vibrant type of

community that a healthy forest industry can provide.

We are going to be going through some challenges. We can throw

barbs back and forth about causes and issues, but there are going to be

some challenges for our forest industry and for communities like mine,

whether it’s Fraser Lake or Fort St. James or Vanderhoof.

I think the way forward to try to help communities through that is

to recognize, respect and support our industry, find ways to make it

competitive, find ways to help it through these challenging times so

that when we come out, we can be strong and we can see the changes that

are needed. The steps that this government has taken does anything but

do that. It has driven up costs, to being the highest-cost producer; it

has driven up uncertainty; and it has assaulted the very fabric and the

contract that was formed so many years ago, in terms of the tenure and

the contract between government and companies and the devaluation of

that through this assault.

As you can imagine from my rather lengthy speech, I will not be

supporting a bill like this. But I do offer an olive branch out to the

minister that maybe there is a way we could sit down and work on

something that could work, that we could find a way to be able to bridge

some of these political divides and support our communities without this

kind of assault. I hope that the minister will take this seriously. I

know he’s had an opportunity to be in here for all of the comments. I

hope he would take that offer seriously, for the good and for the

benefit of our forest industry in the province of British

Columbia.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to offer my few comments on Bill 22, the Forest

Amendment Act. I have to say, first of all, that the forest sector goes

through different phases, as we’ve seen over the history of this

province. Our government has made a decision, I think a forward-thinking

decision, that in effect addresses some of the problems that weren’t

addressed by the previous government, and that is that we’ve seen a

major concentration of ownership, a concentration of control among a few

companies. The changes that are being made allow government to have more

oversight over the industry.

I know that over the last number of weeks, we’ve heard members of

the opposition complain about restoring public interest into the basis

of other acts and pieces of legislation. It seems to be almost an

ideological opposition to including the public in the administration or

in the development of policies in this province.

I think when you include the public, you get legislation,

regulations, that reflect the public interest. What we have seen over

the 16 years of the previous government is that the public interest

wasn’t necessarily top of mind for them. So I’m pleased to see that our

government has made this decision to try to make sure that the public

asset, the benefits of that common wealth of our province, are shared

more effectively and more fairly throughout our province. What we’ve

seen are communities, in some cases, and First Nations left out of that

format.

The legislation that’s before us today simply allows government to

have some more oversight. When the disposition of Crown tenures….

Previous legislation prevented government’s ability to involve itself in

any way, and I think that did not serve the public interest. What we’re

doing, I believe, through these amendments to the Forest Act is

addressing some of those.

I understand the previous minister has a concern that he’s not in

charge anymore. The decisions that he made are under question,

obviously. The changes and the improvements we’re making failed to be

done by the previous government, but I think that the changes are

utterly and entirely supportable.

[3:40 p.m.]

They recognize that our small communities…. I represent a

community that is very forest-reliant, very forest-centred. I have two

pulp mills, a large forest industry. I’ve heard from a number of people

about the concern about the concentration of ownership of the resource

that we accurately describe as our common wealth. This is our resource.

The province of British Columbia’s resource. I think it’s appropriate

that government ensures that that resource is managed in a way that

benefits all British Columbians.

I just wanted to make it clear that the member, the opposition

critic, does take every opportunity to ensure that even the simplest

discussion becomes a partisan one. I think that, in fact, this is just a

good piece of legislation that addresses some concerns that have been

raised by people across this province. I think these are important

changes to ensure that we pursue better oversight of the forest

industry.

I thank members of the opposition for letting their case be made.

They have ample opportunity to provide the House with amendments that

they would like the House to consider. I have not heard any suggestion

that they’re going to put forward amendments. I’ve heard about olive

branches, but I don’t think they are accepted by the Clerk’s office as

amendments. I believe that the amendments have to be in a certain

format.

The previous speaker talked about wanting to work with the

minister. I’ll take him at his word. How is that going to happen? Is he

going to propose some changes to this act or not? That’s ultimately up

to the opposition to do. As someone who, in 12 years, sat in opposition,

I didn’t always have a lot of confidence that government would listen.

In fact, they rarely did. But we have an agreement with another party

here, and we know how to make some compromises when they’re necessary.

We won’t go against our values, but I believe that the opportunity is

there to make amendments to this legislation. I look forward to the

opposition’s amendments.

We have a situation where we’ve addressed and identified issues. I

thank the minister for the work that he’s done. I think he has the full

support of caucus. These are some changes that we’ve hoped

for.

With that, Madam Speaker, I’ll take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister shall close

debate.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to thank all members who took the opportunity to present

their perspectives on Bill 22 for rising in this chamber. I do, of

course, want to address a few of the perspectives I heard from the

benches of the official opposition, and to correct some of the

record.

The lack of recognition that it’s the people in B.C. who own the

forest…. It was just astounding when it came from the benches of the

official opposition. It is the people of B.C. who own the forests, and

they’re not private assets that belong to companies.

The member for Kelowna-Mission talked about a perceived

concentration of tenure amongst a few companies. Well, it’s not a

perceived concentration of tenure; it’s a reality. It’s a reality due to

the policies and legislation of the former government. The reality of

that concentration of tenure is it has undermined

competition.

The member for Nechako Lakes claims that Bill 22 will somehow

undermine competition. The reality of the situation is that the

concentration of tenure we’ve seen as a result of the actions by the

previous government has undermined competition, and there has been a

dramatic increase in concentration. That hasn’t been to the benefit of

communities, First Nations or the forestry sector in general.

The changes in Bill 22 will allow more government say on behalf of

the people of B.C. on how tenures are transferred or acquired. It will

allow respectful dealings with First Nations, which the member for

Nechako Lakes characterized as an unacceptable cost — an unacceptable

cost to respectfully deal with First Nations that Bill 22 will

allow.

[3:45 p.m.]

The member for Nechako Lakes not only talked about through

industry’s perception of an unacceptable cost of dealing with First

Nations but how industry looks at the bill is most important. The

members on this side understand that the public forests are a publicly

held asset, and the most important aspect of Bill 22 is ensuring that

government has control over an asset, control that was diminished by the

actions of the previous government.

The member for Nechako Lakes intimated that something was going to

be ripped up. Bill 22 is not about ripping up anything. It says the

minister may take further action around tenure transfers or

amalgamation. He typified, in a negative sense…. This is a direct quote:

“Under Bill 22, you can’t do a deal until you meet a public interest

test.” How shocking is that? It’s a public asset. The trees in this

province are owned publicly, and the member for Nechako Lakes is casting

a negative aspect on saying you can’t do a deal until you meet a public

interest test. Unbelievable.

Businesses will look after businesses, as it should be. The

government role is to look after the broader public interest. That’s

what Bill 22 will do. The member for Kelowna West talked about

uncertainty. Of course, the prime example of uncertainty was the

swapping of tenures that the member for Nechako Lakes referred to

between Canfor and West Fraser in 2013, swapping of tenures without any

notification to the communities. How great an uncertainty and distress

that caused in communities. That’s what this government on this side is

concerned about, communities and First Nations, when it comes to a

publicly held natural resource asset like the forests of our

province.

As the member for Nechako Lakes talked about, that swap happened

12 years after the B.C. Liberals came to government in 2001. Yet he

tries to claim that it was the policies of the 1990s that created that

timber swap. Twelve years after the Liberals took government, the timber

swap happened. From what I understand, there was no consultation with

the Minister of Forests at the time. The Minister of Forests was in

China on a trade mission.

That’s what happened from the concentration of tenure. That’s what

happened after the 2003 supposed forest revitalization plan that the

previous government had put in place. No say by the communities.

Uncertainty created in Houston; uncertainty created in Quesnel. I know

there was an exodus of people from Houston because of that uncertainty.

They’re just recovering from part of that today, many, many years

later.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about the need for strong

leadership. I can’t agree more. We’re making decisions and taking action

on the challenges facing the forest sector in communities. Bill 22 is

one way of showing strong leadership that should have been done over a

decade ago, when the trends were demonstrating that the increased

concentration and the ability to swap tenures without any kind of public

test were detrimental to communities and First Nations and the sector

generally.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about standing up and

taking action. Well, the previous government sat on their hands while

thousands of jobs were lost during their tenure, thousands of jobs in

the forestry sector, and 100 mills shut during their tenure. They sat on

their hands and didn’t do anything around that.

They also sat on their hands when it came to taking measures

necessary on caribou recovery and put thousands of jobs and billions in

economic activity at risk through a unilateral decision by the federal

government. They sat on their hands around forestry jobs, sat on their

hands about the caribou file. That’s a lack of strong leadership that

we’re addressing and making changes today. An example of that is Bill

In fact, there were fewer jobs in 2017 in rural areas, when that

side of the chamber left government, than there were in 2008, fewer jobs

in rural B.C. The member for Cariboo North talked about actions that

we’ve taken as government in the last 21 months that have negatively

impacted the local economy in her area. Well, I want to quote from the

Quesnel Cariboo Observer just a couple of months ago, in

January.

[3:50 p.m.]

Here’s the headline: “The Unemployment Rate Is at a 43-Year Low

for Quesnel, 5.6 Percent.” You know, you have to have your facts

straight when you’re addressing these kinds of economic issues.

Obviously, the member for Cariboo North didn’t have her facts straight.

A 43-year-low unemployment rate in Quesnel, and she is saying this

government has had a negative impact on the local economy in her area.

Well, you know what? That was the lowest-ever unemployment rate in

Quesnel since StatsCan began keeping records — the lowest

ever.

Not only did the member for Cariboo North talk about the history

of participation in the forest industry in her family through

independent jobs, but the member for Nechako Lakes also talked about the

comments of the Premier at the truck loggers annual conference just

earlier this year. I want to touch on that briefly, because the truck

loggers are independent small business owners. They have membership from

around the province. They’re the ones who harvest the timber and supply

it to mills. They’re the types of jobs that the member for Cariboo North

was talking about. They’re the kind of people that were at the

conference that the member for Nechako Lakes was referencing.

I just want to read into the record briefly a couple of comments

from the executive director of the Truck Loggers Association, Dave

Elstone, when commenting on Bill 22 in a news release.

“For more than 70 years, it has been the Truck Loggers Association’s

position that consolidation is not good for the financial sustainability

of all stakeholders in the forest industry. Now finally this government

is making a substantial effort to prevent further tenure consolidation….

We are encouraged by this change. Combined with the recent policy

changes resulting from the contractor sustainability review, it will

ensure a more sustainable future for contractors and

communities.”

That’s the Truck Loggers Association, representative of small

businesses across this province involved in the forest

sector.

I just want to wrap up by saying that, first and foremost, the

forests of this province are a publicly held natural resource, and any

dispositions of tenure need to keep this fact at the forefront in the

name of the public good for communities, for First Nations, for workers

and for the forest sector economy.

With that, I move second reading.

[3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 22.

[4:00 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 22 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 29

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Stewart

Sultan

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Foster

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate on Bill 17, Environmental Management

Amendment Act.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

This bill proposes to make two crucial improvements to the

Environmental Management Act for the better protection of human health

and the environment. The first improvement updates the process of

identifying contaminated sites in the province to achieve more timely

investigation of potential contamination on land. The second expands the

investigation powers of the conservation officer service.

The changes to the site identification process in the

Environmental Management Act are made in direct response to consultation

completed with local governments and stakeholders since 2014.

The purpose of these changes is threefold: to eliminate

unnecessary steps in the process and make requirements easier to

understand for site owners who use it; to create an automatic

requirement for site investigation when a prescribed industrial or

commercial activity has occurred on a site and if a person, owner or

operator is seeking redevelopment or the shutdown of operations; and to

identify industrial or commercial sites with owners or operators

undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in order to increase the likelihood

that contamination is addressed by the responsible person and not by

taxpayers, as has been the case far too often till now.

The amendments will streamline site identification by eliminating

the condition for a person to disclose information about a site when no

change of use or redevelopment is occurring.

[4:05 p.m.]

A new requirement will be added for a person to provide

information about a site if applying for a building permit involving

soil disturbance. Adding it as a requirement will ensure sites being

redeveloped are properly identified.

The bill will also create a new automatic requirement for site

investigation to ensure identified sites with a prescribed industrial or

commercial use are investigated in a timely manner.

The amendments also place a new obligation on an owner and

operators of a site to provide information if an owner or an operator of

a site has either filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors

Arrangement Act or filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Act.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Orphan Well

Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. , also known as Redwater,

does not have an impact on these proposed amendments.

Consequential amendments are proposed to the Local Government Act,

the Land Title Act, the Islands Trust Act, the Oil and Gas Activities

Act and Vancouver Charter to reflect the proposed changes to the

Environmental Management Act.

The amendments will only apply to new applications for local

government permits or following a future site closure. The existing

provisions will continue to apply to applications made before these

amendments come into effect. Amendments to the contaminated sites

regulation will be developed to support full implementation of these

legislative amendments.

The second amendments are to the conservation officer service. The

remaining proposed amendments to the act will provide the conservation

officer service with the expanded set of tools needed to fully

investigate serious environmental offences, which can range from

pollution to wildlife poaching and illegal trafficking in animal

parts.

The amendments will incorporate into the Environmental Management

Act specific provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada,

including:

Preservation demand, which gives authority for a peace officer to

demand a non-accused person preserve computer data; preservation order,

which is a court order to compel a non-accused person to preserve

computer data; production order, which is a court order to compel a

non-accused person to produce a document containing information related

to the offence; non-disclosure order, which is a court order to compel a

person not to disclose the existence of or the contents of a

preservation or a production order; assistance order, which is a court

order to compel a person to assist an officer in the execution of a

particular warrant.

General warrant, which gives authority to use any device or

investigative technique or p