2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Transit services in Victoria

J. Bray

War against Iraq

J. MacPhail

Kitimat anniversary

R. Harris

Oral Questions

Gaming funding for B.C. Paraplegic Association

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Coleman

Workplace safety regulations

H. Bloy

Hon. G. Bruce

Addiction treatment services

B. Locke

Hon. G. Cheema

Cruise ship industry in B.C.

J. Bray

Hon. R. Thorpe

Nursing strategy

J. Les

Hon. S. Hawkins

Government policies on women's issues

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Petitions

S. Orr

Ministerial Statements

Severe acute respiratory syndrome

Hon. S. Hawkins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Agrologists Act (Bill 4)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Agrologists Act (Bill 4)

Second Reading of Bills

Foresters Act (Bill 5)

Hon. M. de Jong

P. Bell

R. Visser

Committee of the Whole House

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Hon. G. Abbott

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Third Reading of Bills

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Second Reading of Bills

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued)

K. Krueger

R. Harris

R. Visser

T. Christensen

P. Bell

S. Brice

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines

Hon. R. Neufeld

P. Nettleton

J. MacPhail

Royal Assent to Bills

Agrologists Act (Bill 4)

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Supply Act (No.1), 2003 (Bill 26)

[ Page 5693 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003

The House

met at 2:06 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Deputy

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I have the pleasure to make the first

introduction. In the gallery is Fran Crowhurst, legislative counsel with the

Attorney General's ministry, and joining her is Michelle Fletcher on exchange

from parliamentary council office in Canberra. Joining her is her husband, Karl.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from

Japan. Mr. Suzuki is the chairman of the Listel group and owns Listel hotels in

Vancouver and Whistler as well as a travel company, Choji Travel Canada Ltd. Mr.

Suzuki is an active promoter of Japanese tourism to British Columbia and Canada.

We greatly appreciate his contributions in developing new trade and cultural

exchanges between British Columbia and Japan.

Mr. Suzuki

is visiting British Columbia in celebration of his recent seventieth birthday,

and his visit will be subject to a documentary film in Japan. He is accompanied

today by Mr. Zhou, vice-president of Listel Canada, and Mr. Okamoto of NHK,

Japan's national radio and television. Would everyone in this House please

welcome Mr. Suzuki to British Columbia.

Manhas: Today in Victoria we have a group of grade 11 students from Terry

Fox Secondary School in Port Coquitlam led by Mr. Don van Os, Mark Prinster,

Bruce Moore, Bill Mullan, Andrea Gielty, Bruce Kiloh and Scott Parker. They're

all outstanding teachers at Terry Fox Secondary School in Port Coquitlam, who

have brought along their classes and 280 of their favourite students up to

Victoria for an annual visit to the Legislature and to visit our House and the

capital city. Would the House please make them very welcome for their visit here

to Victoria.

Stewart: Not to be outdone, we've got two outstanding teachers and their

grade 11 socials class from Centennial high school in Coquitlam visiting the

Legislature today. Teachers Joe Gluska and Steve Fukui and their grade 11 class

are entering the gallery right now. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) TRANSIT SERVICES IN VICTORIA

J. Bray:

Today I wish to speak about a very important issue in my community, the

provision of transit services. Public transit is a vital component of a healthy,

sustainable community, one where people are able to travel between work and

home, school and home, and to other community services and events. Next year in

Victoria, transit will carry over 20 million passengers. Good public transit

connects people.

Currently,

the Victoria transit commission is conducting a review of services in my

constituency. Possible changes being proposed may impact some of my

constituents. Let me review B.C. Transit's mission: "To excel in the

provision of safe, reliable, cost-efficient and market-focused public

transportation systems that support the social, economic and environmental goals

of customers and the communities that they serve."

In Victoria

many of the decisions regarding transit services and funding are made by the

Victoria regional transit commission. In Victoria the commission is responsible

for determining route configurations and transit service levels, setting fares,

reviewing and making recommendations for the annual budget, and raising the

local share of the annual cost of transit.

In my

latest constituency newsletter I asked for feedback on important local issues.

Given the possible changes proposed for transit service in my community, many

constituents have identified transit as a major area where they look for my

involvement. To that end, I have met with the Minister of Transportation to

discuss issues around transit and the impacts of service changes to seniors,

students and others who rely on transit for their participation in the

community. I have met with the Victoria transit commission again to discuss

these issues.

[1410]

In March

2003 the transit service review is asking for feedback over the next couple of

weeks. The final recommendations will go to the transit commission. I encourage

all residents in my community to read the transit review document and provide

their feedback directly to Victoria transit. Constituents can contact my office

for copies of the latest report and information on how to submit their views.

I can

assure my constituents that I will continue to work for strong public transit in

my community.

WAR AGAINST IRAQ

MacPhail: The war in Iraq is on the mind of every British Columbian. Whether

we agree with the decision to go to war or not, we all watch with horror as the

violence and death of war unfolds on our television screens. We are all deeply

concerned for the combatants, for the Iraqi people and for the children of war

for whom this must all be a bewildering nightmare.

On Monday I

asked for an emergency debate in this House to express support for an end to the

hostilities and the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. That request was denied.

However, I have tabled a motion that can be called for debate today. I

respectfully ask that the government allow this House that opportunity.

Ultimate

responsibility for Canada's involvement in the war lies with the federal

government. However, I believe that the provinces and communities must also

[ Page 5694 ]

play a role and take a stand. Already dozens of cities and communities in

North America have passed resolutions opposing a pre-emptive, non-sanctioned war

in Iraq. In British Columbia this is our first opportunity to engage in a debate

about the most significant event of our time and one in which the whole world

has an enormous stake. In my view, as elected representatives we have a moral

and practical responsibility to take a position on a war that will have massive

humanitarian, economic and social implications.

Already the

consequences of war are being felt here at home. Its effects are rippling

through our economy and disrupting our daily routines. British Columbians are

asking how we can play a role in helping relieve the humanitarian crisis that is

unfolding.

British

Columbians come from every part of the world. We celebrate every faith, and we

are joined together by common values: peace, civility and tolerance — values

which in these dangerous times must be given voice. We have a collective

responsibility to take a stand for the values that British Columbians cherish.

For future generations and for the security of the world, we must take a lead

role and encourage peaceful solutions.

I ask that

my motion to oppose the pre-emptive strike in Baghdad be called for debate and

that this body act as a strong voice for peace and justice in the world.

KITIMAT ANNIVERSARY

Harris: It's my pleasure to inform the House about the fiftieth anniversary

of a unique community in my riding. On March 31, 2003, the district of Kitimat

will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of its incorporation as a district

municipality.

The story

of Kitimat is not a normal story of a crossroads that grew, attracted more

residents and then commerce, and finally became a community. Rather, it's a

story of how the post–Second World War efforts to open up B.C.'s north to

industrial development led to the founding of a brand-new, fully planned

community which now makes a very significant contribution to the economy of

British Columbia. In the 1950s the Alcan development of the aluminum industry in

Kitimat was featured in the National Geographic Magazine .

I'd like to

take this opportunity to extend Kitimat's invitation to the people of British

Columbia to visit during these fiftieth-anniversary celebrations. While in

Kitimat, visitors will be able to enjoy some of the best deep-sea river fishing

for salmon in the province, if not the world. They will find a community of

great rugged beauty, surrounded by snow-capped mountains and providing some of

the best outdoor recreational opportunities and amenities in our province. A

visit to the neighbouring community of Haisla offers an opportunity to

experience a wealth of first nations heritage and culture. Kitimat is a modern

community with a new hospital, a good school system and recreational facilities

that are the envy of many larger communities, thanks in many ways to the impacts

of its industrial development.

I am

pleased to distribute to the members a special invitation. As the MLA for

Kitimat, I expect to play a role in the fiftieth-anniversary celebrations and

hope that many of my colleagues and people of B.C. will grasp this opportunity

to see and celebrate with this unique community in 2003.

[1415]

Oral Questions

GAMING FUNDING FOR

B.C. PARAPLEGIC ASSOCIATION

MacPhail: Can the minister responsible for gaming explain why the B.C.

Paraplegic Association is losing close to a million dollars in gaming funds,

threatening programs that help British Columbians with spinal cord injuries?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm actually meeting with the B.C. Paraplegic Association tomorrow

to discuss the issue with them. Basically, in the past there has been some

disproportionate funding to provincial organizations under the grant program

that existed. We've sat down with the organization and looked at a transition

plan with them, and I'll be sitting down with them tomorrow.

Deputy

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a supplemental.

MacPhail: I'm aware the minister is meeting with the Paraplegic Association

tomorrow. He has actually got his facts wrong. The former government worked with

the B.C. Paraplegic Association to consolidate its ten regional gaming licences

into one to actually cut red tape. That saved both the government and the

association thousands of dollars in administrative costs and allowed the B.C.

Paraplegic Association to concentrate on what it does best — helping people

with spinal cord injuries.

Now this

minister is going to turn back the clock and force this important organization

to jump through bureaucratic hoops while cutting close to a million dollars from

its budget. Again to the minister: can he explain why he thinks it makes sense

to throw up bureaucratic obstacles, impose red tape and at the same time cut the

funding of an organization that thousands of British Columbians with spinal cord

injuries depend upon?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The member is aware that we have been dealing with the direct

access program and trying to see how we can revamp it to make it sustainable for

all British Columbians. As we've done that, we've run into some things like the

Paraplegic Association finding themselves in some difficulty. Each time that

happens, I meet with the organization and try and figure out long-term

strategies to solve their problem. I'm doing that tomorrow. I look forward to

meeting with the organization and coming back and sitting down with my officials

to see how we can deal with some of their issues.

[ Page 5695 ]

MacPhail: As always, it is left up to the agencies that provide services in

this community to bring this government to its heels and to its senses in doing

the right thing. This government always tries to do the wrong thing first. Yes,

the minister is meeting with the Paraplegic Association tomorrow, and here's

what they will tell him. They will tell him that they help 100 people a month at

G.F. Strong to recover and to leave hospital early.

That saves

the health care system hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but the program

at G.F. Strong, as of this day, may have to go entirely in order to make up for

this minister's budget cut, costing the taxpayers millions over the long term.

Will the minister commit that after his meeting tomorrow, he will announce that

every dime of gaming funding cut will now go directly back into helping British

Columbians with spinal cord injuries?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Once again, a nonsensical statement from the Leader of the

Opposition. There has not been one single dime cut from gaming to charities in

the province. Next year it will go up by over $3 million. Under that government,

it was not a sustainable program. In the last year of your mandate, over 500

charities applied for money and didn't receive a dime. This is the first time in

many years that we've had a sustainable grant program in British Columbia, and

over 400 more charities were helped this year than in years past.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order. The member for Burquitlam has the floor.

[1420]

WORKPLACE SAFETY REGULATIONS

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. This morning

the B.C. Federation of Labour presented a brief on the impact of deregulating

WCB regulations. They claim that the changes will seriously water down work

safety standards and hurt the health and safety of workers. Can the Minister of

Skills Development and Labour tell me if this is true, and what are the reasons

for the changes?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I appreciate the question. In fact, what we're attempting to do is to

revamp the WCB so it's an agency that is useful and worthwhile in being able to

help and protect and improve the safety of the worksite.

Currently,

there are 34,000 regulations in the province of British Columbia around safety

at the worksite. Tragically, it would be important to note that in respect of

the forestry sector and the deaths in the forestry sector, in spite of the fact

that we have twice the number of regulations from a number of years ago in

respect to WCB, we still have the same number of deaths or even, in some years,

higher. That's simply not good enough.

The other

aspect of things…. If one looks at thinking that regulations are what make the

difference for a safe and protective worksite, in the oil and gas sector in our

northeast sector, compared to that in Alberta…. Alberta has 38 regulations;

British Columbia has 88 regulations. Alberta has 52,000 people that work in the

oil and gas industry. We only have 2,000, and their injury rate is considerably

less.

ADDICTION TREATMENT SERVICES

Locke: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Surrey is

a community of over 370,000 people. Along with that big-city population come

big-city problems, not the least of which are drug addictions. One of the issues

that is important to my community is the availability of addiction services. To

the minister: can he tell us what this government is doing to ensure that

services are available for those people wanting and needing the help in Surrey?

Hon. G.

Cheema: An addiction is not a character flaw. It's a disease of the brain,

and that needs to be treated like any other disease. It's important to note that

70 percent of the patients in B.C.'s addiction system are also patients of the

mental health care system. As of April 1, 2002, and for the first time in B.C.'s

history, our government has brought addiction care directly to the health care

system. We are also integrating mental health and addiction services to serve

patients more effectively.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Our restructuring is helping the health authorities to revitalize

their addiction service. This will ensure that the services are provided on the

basis of evidence-based studies and are carefully managed throughout the

regions. The Fraser health authority's plan for addiction services will also

result in more detoxification services for youth and many others in our

province.

CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY IN B.C.

J. Bray:

My question…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the question.

J. Bray:

…is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Recently news

reports have indicated the potential growth in the number of U.S. cruise ships

visiting B.C. ports, including smaller ports like Victoria. As I've mentioned

before, cruise ship visits are very

[ Page 5696 ]

important for our local economy. This year 119 ships are expected to visit

Victoria, which potentially brings millions of dollars into our local economy.

Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise explain what government

is doing to foster further growth to ensure that port communities like Victoria

and others along the coast can maximize the opportunities from growing cruise

ship visits from the U.S.?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This year the cruise ship industry will generate $34 million in

economic activity in the Victoria area. Last year our government eliminated the

7 percent tax on bunker fuel. This year we eliminated the tax on fuel for gas

turbine engines. Our government is working in partnership with the federal

government to build a cruise ship facility at Prince Rupert.

[1425]

Together

with my colleague the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, the

government is working on a ports strategy for the coastal communities of British

Columbia. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, on May 23 of

this year there will be four cruise ships docked in Victoria. It is a new era

for cruise ships in Victoria.

NURSING STRATEGY

J. Les:

My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. One of the challenges that

we've had in British Columbia is the provision of qualified nurses throughout

the province. Our government's nursing strategy demonstrates its commitment to

addressing this challenge and the shortage that exists in British Columbia. Can

the minister explain to the House the results she has had thus far as a result

of her efforts?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Our government decided to act very quickly, in fact, to address an

issue that had been ignored by the previous government for ten years. We

implemented a nursing strategy. We invested $42 million, and to date we've seen

results in our ability to attract, retain, recruit and educate nurses. In fact,

the Minister of Advanced Education added 1,266 more nursing seats.

We've had

initiatives to encourage B.C. nurses who aren't working to take a refresher

course and come back into the health care system. We've trained 400 nurses who

weren't working to do that. We've recruited more foreign-educated nurses to help

fill those hard-to-fill spaces in our ICUs, our emergency rooms, our operating

rooms, and labour and delivery. We've given new opportunities for nurses to get

specialty training across the province, and we invested $15 million last year in

funding bed lifts for health authorities outside the lower mainland.

The

Minister of Advanced Education also implemented a forgivable student loan

program, the first of its kind in Canada, which ensures that nurses who work in

underserved areas can get their loan forgiven over a period of three years.

We've seen some real benefits to that. We now have a net of 538 more nurses this

year than last year, and in the face of an aging and retiring nursing

population, I think that's great. We've also decreased the nurse vacancy rate by

almost 60 percent. The RNABC reports that 73 percent of 2002 nursing grads are

working in permanent positions today, compared to 24 percent in 1997. So that's

good news.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ON WOMEN'S ISSUES

MacPhail: It's always disappointing when this government continually fails

to realize that we live in a global economy. This morning the International

Labour Organization censured this government once again. A few weeks ago another

UN body censured this government for their record on women's equality, but did

the Minister of State for Women's Equality pay any attention? No, she's at it

again, talking to her local paper and attacking the organization that she's

supposed to be working with — the very organization she's supposed to

represent. This time she set her sights a little higher, attacking the United

Nations. Why? Because the UN released a report criticizing her government's

record on women's equality issues.

To the

minister: what conspiracy theory does she subscribe to that would lead her to

conclude that the United Nations would release a politically motivated report

criticizing her government — exactly what she accused the UN of in her local

paper?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong —

completely wrong. This government is one that has made sure we have protected

those critical services for women. We have the third-highest level of legal aid

funding in Canada. We have the programs in place that make sure women have the

services they require. We will continue to do that. We have, in fact, put in

place our safer community strategy that we're going to be working on and we will

be releasing shortly.

[1430]

This member

here continues to talk about what she thinks is relevant. In fact, she continues

to get everything wrong. She needs to go back and look at what was said. She

needs to look at the women's centres, which are the ones that were talking about

the kinds of problems that the UN thought they were addressing. It is the

women's centres that are looking at making sure they, in fact, put forward the

wrong information that we continue to try to address.

[End

of question period.]

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please.

Petitions

S. Orr:

I rise to present a petition. This petition has 334 signatures from the parents

of Richmond Elemen-

[ Page 5697 ]

tary School in my riding and their concerns about and opposition to possible

closure of their school.

Ministerial Statements

SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Over the past 24 hours there have been significant developments

regarding an outbreak of a rare and potentially fatal respiratory illness. This

has been causing widespread concern around the world, and the origin of SARS, or

severe acute respiratory syndrome, remains a mystery.

Since

November 2002 more than 1,400 people worldwide, including 28 cases in Canada,

have been diagnosed with SARS. A total of 53 people around the world, including

three Canadians in Ontario, have lost their lives.

In British

Columbia there is one probable case of SARS, and 12 other cases are being

monitored for SARS. Four of these cases look suspect, but in all cases symptoms

of SARS were reported after returning to Canada from areas where SARS cases have

been confirmed. Four of the 12 cases meet the suspect definition of SARS, and

isolation precautions have been taken for all of these cases. To date, no

British Columbia health care worker has been impacted.

I want to

assure every British Columbian that our government continues to monitor the

situation closely, and we are prepared to take any necessary action to safeguard

public health in relation to this outbreak. Through the B.C. Centre for Disease

Control and the office of Dr. Perry Kendall, who is our provincial medical

health officer, we're receiving regular updates on the provincial, national and

global developments regarding the spread of identified cases of the syndrome and

the latest efforts to respond to this global public health issue.

Working

closely with our health authorities and the network of medical health officers

across the province, we're ensuring we have access to information around any

potential or emerging cases on a regular basis. We also continue to work closely

with Health Canada and the other provinces and territories to share information

and ensure consistency in our approaches at the national level.

Anyone

watching the news last night or who picked up the paper this morning will be

well aware that Ontario has been hard-hit by this illness. In fact, as of

Wednesday afternoon thousands were advised to remain at home in quarantine for a

period of ten days. The province of Ontario officially declared a public health

emergency.

Based on

the advice of our senior health officials, we have been advised that it is not

necessary to take this step as yet in B.C., given the small number of suspected

cases here at home and the strong surveillance networks we have in place.

I want to

emphasize, though, that we will act swiftly if the situation changes. I want to

say, as well, that in British Columbia the situation has remained well in hand

because of our ability to respond quickly, given the smaller number of health

authorities and the improved coordination across the spectrum of our health care

system, which includes our network of public health and disease surveillance.

Today we

have posted the most current information about SARS on line on the B.C.

government website at www.gov.bc.ca, on both ministries of Health webpages, and

I encourage the public to explore both the Health Canada and B.C. Centre for

Disease Control websites for further information as the situation develops. I

understand we'll have the links to those on our webpages as well. In addition,

our NurseLine, which can be accessed by calling 1-866-215-4700, is available to

any British Columbian with specific questions around the symptoms of SARS or who

have concerns about their own health.

[1435]

I think

it's really, really important to understand that a history of travel to the Far

East — to Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi, Taiwan and the Guangdong province in

China — or known contact with a SARS case is necessary for a diagnosis of

suspect or probable SARS. Those are key factors, and we want you to understand

that, as the symptoms of SARS are consistent with many other conditions. We want

to avoid unnecessary alarm. Again, I want to emphasize that our top priority as

a government is to ensure public health and safety. We will continue to be

vigilant in our efforts to monitor and respond to this developing situation.

At this

time, I do want to acknowledge the work of the provincial health officer, the

B.C. Centre for Disease Control, the health authorities, their medical health

officers and public health officials who are doing just an amazing job in

keeping us informed and keeping the situation under control.

Deputy

Speaker: Responding to the ministerial statement, the Leader of the

Opposition.

MacPhail: Thank you to the Minister of Health Planning for providing the

opposition with her remarks. Also, thank you to the minister for making note of

the opposition's request to have information posted on the website.

In these

times of high anxiety about so many issues affecting us nationally,

internationally and locally, it is important that everybody have the most

current information not only to make sure the issue is managed safely, securely

and quickly from a health status but also to ensure that the high anxiety does

not create disturbances beyond the health issue, particularly as it comes to

travel and how that may affect our economy.

Anything

the opposition can do to ensure quick and proper access and distribution of

information, we will do in order to handle this most serious health issue.

[ Page 5698 ]

I. Chong:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Chong: Joining us today is a group of ladies who make an annual trek to the

buildings. They're not always the same people, but they are a club: University

Women's Club of Victoria. They are led by Ms. Sylvia Camp. I believe there are

14 women accompanying them. If they're not already in the gallery watching, I

know they soon will be. I still would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

AGROLOGISTS ACT

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:39 p.m.

Sections 1

to 36 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:40 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

4, Agrologists Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTERS ACT

Hon.

M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be read a second time now.

The

Foresters Act, Bill 5, repeals and replaces existing legislation that has been

in place since 1947. It also contains a more concise, modern and enforceable

definition of professional forestry practice.

The act

also modifies the name of the regulatory body that oversees the forestry

profession, changing it to the Association of British Columbia Forest

Professionals. That association name change reflects the inclusion of registered

forest technologists within the organization. The transfer of forest

technologists into the association represents, in my view, a significant step

forward in support of the regulatory design of the Forest and Range Practices

Act legislation introduced and passed earlier by this Legislature.

The Forest

and Range Practices Act relies on the judgment and accountability of resource

professionals and technologists to ensure that environmental standards are

maintained under a workable results-based code. The key to maintaining this

commitment is being able to depend upon highly trained, dedicated, accountable

professionals and technologists to make sound resource management decisions.

Forest

professionals will be held more accountable on the plans they approve. A lack of

diligence can lead to sanction of a member of the association, as amendments to

the Foresters Act provide stronger capacity to sanction poor practices and poor

practitioners. This bill makes the discipline process outlined in the Foresters

Act more cost- and time-effective by better enabling the association to take the

necessary actions to hold its own members accountable, by clarifying the

investigative powers of the association as well as the role and powers of the

panel charged with conducting hearings into the competence or conduct of members

with complaints that are made against them and, finally, by formalizing

mechanisms to assist in resolving complaints against members and make the

process more approachable for potential complainants.

The new

Foresters Act also provides association members with protection against adverse

actions such as suspension or discharge taken against them for exercising their

professional obligations and raising complaints. With this new Foresters Act,

the judgment of forest professionals can be relied upon as a cornerstone for the

results-based era that this government promised and has now acted upon.

P. Bell:

I'm very happy to stand in support of Bill 5 today. I believe that even though

this bill has received little publicity and, really, little focus, it's a key

part of the equation in moving towards a new era of forestry in the province —

just as significant in many ways as some of the other acts we have passed and

will be passing in the coming weeks.

[1445]

I think

most significant is the focus on moving foresters into a true professional

association. I think that truly brings a new honour to the profession of

registered professional foresters. I believe it indicates their responsibilities

to society. It really, I think, mandates an entire new era for the profession

and moves them to a new level.

[ Page 5699 ]

More

importantly, without this particular piece of legislation, Bill 74, the Forest

and Range Practices Act, really would become far more complex. It is a

significant piece in the sense that in order for Bill 74 to function

appropriately, we have to rely on the accountability of professionals.

I was

always kind of curious. Oftentimes we would have an engineer design a bridge or

a tall building, and we would rely on that engineer's stamp on a document or a

piece of paper and presume that that individual had accepted responsibility for

that, when there are literally thousands or perhaps millions of lives at stake

as they travel over that particular bridge or move around that building. Yet in

the forestry community, when we have a registered professional forester sign off

on a document to cut down a single tree, that has in the past not been good

enough. We had to have multiple signatures and multiple stamps. This moves us to

a mechanism that will allow for professional accountability. This allows that

individual, upon completion of their degree at one of our wonderful universities

in the province, to sign off on a document and accept responsibility for their

actions and the impact that individual would have on the environment. I think

it's a tremendous step forward for us. I think it's extremely important.

I think the

inclusion of forestry technicians and the recognition that technicians are, in

fact, individuals that are very responsible and have received significant

training…. The reliance of those individuals and the advice that they give….

I can speak from the perspective of an individual who worked in the forest

industry for a number of years, and I oftentimes relied on the opinions and

judgments of forestry technicians. This has truly given them a new sense of

responsibility and a new authority that they need to accept and move forward on.

Probably

most important is, I think, the fact that this moves us to the results-based

objectives that we stated very clearly in our New Era document some two

years ago. We wanted to move to an era in British Columbia where we allowed

people to take responsibility for their actions, and when they had received a

period of education and when they signed off on a document, we understood that

they were accepting that responsibility and that they would provide us the

result we were looking forward to. Although this particular piece of legislation

has not received a lot of attention, I am certainly very happy to speak in

support of the legislation, and I think it is very significant for many, many

thousands of professional foresters in our province who look forward to the

anticipated results.

Visser: I just wanted to take a couple of minutes out of the House's time to

talk a bit about Bill 5 and the professional foresters and engineers that I know

up my way. I have met with them on a number of occasions and actually had the

privilege of going and lecturing to the fourth-year forest policy class at UBC's

forestry school a few weeks back. I know firsthand of the work that they do, the

commitments that they all have to their communities and what they contribute to

the forests of the North Island.

As I travel

from Holberg to Woss to Gold River to Campbell River, the people that show up

and want to talk about forests — who want to communicate with government about

how we're going to behave in the forests and how we should act in the forests,

about the relationship between the ecology of the environment and their jobs as

foresters — are true professionals in every sense of the word. They believe in

what they do, and they've wanted some recognition and some freedom for a long

time. They wanted to be understood in the broader context of public policy for

the role they play. There are four pieces of legislation that have gone through,

in my mind, in the last year — Bill 74, as the member for Prince George North

talked about; the Forest and Range Practices Act; and this bill, Bill 5; along

with the Agrologists Act and the professional biologists act — that really

speak to this government's commitment to embrace professionals.

[1450]

You know,

one of the most startling things I learned from lecturing the fourth-year class

is that kids aren't taking up the profession these days. The number of kids that

have graduated out of the University of British Columbia's forestry school is

scheduled to drop by a factor of half over the next three years.

That's

simply not good enough. That speaks to the attitude that we've had in this

province for a decade, about what they did, what their job was about and what

they contributed. I think this bill and Bill 74 and the attitude that this

government's shown and that the minister's shown towards professional foresters

are going to go a long way to making sure that we get young people, bright young

people from all over British Columbia, back into a profession that we should be

inherently proud of, and one that we lead the world in. I just wanted to take a

couple of minutes to speak in favour of this bill, thank the minister for

recognizing this profession, bringing it to the House and moving it forward.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thank you to the members for their comments and for their

observations about the importance of this piece of legislation as part of the

overall results-based new era that we are creating.

Deputy

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 5.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5,

Foresters Act, 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. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 22.

[ Page 5700 ]

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; H. Long in the chair.

[1455]

The

committee met at 2:56 p.m.

Sections 1

to 9 inclusive approved.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

section 10.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 10 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION

10, in the proposed amendment to

Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, deleting "Chair" and substituting

"Chief Executive Officer".]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the amendment?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the proposed amendment, the term "chair" would be

deleted, and the term "chief executive officer" would be substituted.

Amendment

approved.

section

10 as amended.

MacPhail: Sorry. I said I was just going to discuss 11, 12 and 13, but I do

have a question on this. Why is it necessary to remove it from the Freedom of

Information Act?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Just so it's clear to the member, they are not being removed from

the schedule. The Freedom of Information Act will still apply. It's just a

change in terms of the designated responsible authority.

Section 10

as amended approved.

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with the indulgence of you and the minister, perhaps we

could discuss the amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act. My questions flow

amongst all of them, if I may. I'm sure the minister has heard the feedback and

the anxiety level being raised by these changes amongst heritage

conservationists. There was an

article earlier this week and then one last week

as well. I'll just quote from the one last week, March 21, in the Times

Colonist : "But anxious heritage activists say very few heritage sites

in the world make money, and even with the best will in the world the new

operators are unlikely to be able to make ends meets — let alone pay for

upkeep and maintenance."

Their

concern is arising because I think what's happening in these amendments to the

Heritage Conservation Act is that there will be a British Columbia heritage

legacy fund created. It will be given $5 million in seed money, and the fund

will be administered by a non-profit society that will be put together by

Heritage Society of B.C. and the Land Conservancy. Let me ask the minister why

he's moving in this direction.

[1500]

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are actually two processes here, and I'll just provide the

member with some clarification so there's no confusion around the two.

The first

process that the member alluded to is what we would term the

devolution-of-management process. In that process, what we are attempting to

build on is the experience over the past decade in heritage sites — for

example, Emily Carr House or the Grist Mill at Keremeos — with private sector

or non-profit management of heritage sites. It's my view and certainly the view

of government that government continues to have a vital role in heritage around

things like legislation, policy, the setting of standards, the quality

assurance, assurance of stewardship — all of those areas — but it is not

necessary for government to be a direct delivery agent in terms of the

management of heritage sites.

We are

building on what is actually a well-established track record at places like

Emily Carr House and the Keremeos Grist Mill with that private sector or

non-profit sector management of heritage sites. It has been very successful, and

we're very confident that the process we're involved in now is going to be

successful. There is, I think, some misunderstanding, which was reflected in the

Times Colonist article, with respect to whether the Ministry of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services expected that all the approximately

15 heritage sites in the province would be self-sustaining and self-supporting

in the future.

That's not

the case. We expect some will continue to be supported, but I don't think that

is universally understood among some of the heritage advocates. I know some see

this as a substantial change, and that's fair enough. The articles reflected

that concern, and that's fair enough as well. But I think, certainly, that for

some of the heritage advocates I've spoken to, once they have a clear

understanding of what we're attempting to do, their fears will be much allayed.

Again for

the member's information, that devolution process is distinct from what we are

doing in this bill, which is moving away from the B.C. Heritage Trust, a trust

inside government that has enjoyed only funding from government, to a model that

will see in a conjunction between the Land Conservancy and the Heritage Society

of B.C. the creation of a new trust that will be external from government.

We have, as

the member noted from one of the articles, provided $5 million as the initial

endowment for the new trust. We believe, and we're very confident of

[ Page 5701 ]

this point, that as an entity outside of government, the new trust will be

the recipient of individual donations, of family bequests, of corporate

endowments, and so on, that as a part of government, the outgoing trust simply

couldn't attract. We think this is a better, stronger, more workable model for

heritage programs in the province than what we had before.

The

Heritage Trust inside government had been around for awhile. At one point it was

funded, I think, to the tune of perhaps several million dollars annually. As the

member knows, in the early 1990s we saw — as governments, including her own,

faced fiscal challenges — that the contribution from government to the trust

was diminished. That pattern certainly continued with our government. It's one

of the areas that suffered as we were looking at measures of retrenchment.

I think

that by moving it out of government, by getting it on a sustainable ongoing

basis, in fact, the new trust will be an ongoing and a very powerful method or

vehicle to advance the interests of heritage in the province. It is very much

modelled on the National Trust of Britain, which started out with even smaller

resources than the $5 million with which we've endowed the new trust. We believe

the new trust is going to be very successful and is going to be a great vehicle

for allowing us to preserve, promote and celebrate the heritage of British

Columbia.

[1505]

MacPhail: I wonder if the minister has been able to offer that comfort to

heritage activists.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I believe the answer is yes. I think there will always be some who

are critical of a new path, who are only comfortable when the environment is

entirely unchanged. I think that for those, while I respect their views, it's

not a view which I do or can share at this point.

Some may

always feel some measure of discomfort with anything that changes in the world.

I do have to say that certainly the meetings I've had with the Land Conservancy,

with the Heritage Society of British Columbia — which is the largest and

really is the umbrella organization for virtually all of the major heritage

organizations in the province…. I think they are very comfortable now with the

new model, very supportive of it. They're really excited about the opportunities

and that they're going to be able to go out and raise matching dollars from the

individual, family and corporate areas.

So I think

they're very excited, very much energized by the new approach to heritage in the

province. I think, having worked closely with them in recent weeks and in recent

months, that the level of comfort is much higher today than it was, for example,

a year or 18 months ago.

MacPhail: I assume that the not-for-profit agency may provide tax deductions

for donations?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Within the bounds of charitable donations as are currently reflected

in the tax laws of British Columbia and Canada, charitable donations to this

foundation certainly would be acceptable.

MacPhail: I was interested to hear the minister's comments that some

heritage sites still may require support. How will it be determined what will be

a self-sustaining heritage site and one that will require government support?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The subsidy arrangements that exist on different sites are a

product, I guess, of the historical experience the different sites have gone

through. There are obviously great differences across the 15 sites. Some operate

without subsidy and never have operated with a subsidy. Some of the larger ones

— for example, Barkerville and Fort Steele — have had extensive subsidies at

times — most of the time, in fact.

The size of

the sites is one of the determining factors. The marketplace, the size of the

adjacent community — all of those are factors that come into play. What staff

are looking at particularly as we're moving forward here are the business plan

proposals that various entities have brought into play through the

request-for-information or request-for-proposal portions of the devolution

process.

[1510]

MacPhail: During the devolution process, do the heritage sites have to

reveal fee increase strategies? How do fee increases occur? How will they occur?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm going to try to provide the member with a thorough answer here,

even though she may want to give some thought to picking this up in estimates.

It's not actually a part of this bill — this part of it. Nevertheless, I'll

oblige with the best answer I can.

Part of the

devolution process is that it will put more decision-making power into the hands

of those who will, as a non-profit or private sector entity, be operating the

sites. They would obviously look again at some of the factors we talked about

earlier: the size of the market, the public interest in the site and so on.

Those would likely be the principal determining factors as they set out in their

business plan what the admission cost to the site would be. Rather than cabinet

determining those things, the site operator would be looking at that much more

closely and have much more control over that than was the case the past.

MacPhail: Yes, I accept that this isn't part of the bill, but it may be a

consequence of this change.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No? Okay. Well, let me ask other questions, then.

Does the

minister's answer also apply to changes in hours of work or hours of operation

or the potential for sites being threatened with closure because of lack of

support?

[ Page 5702 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I'm going to oblige the member by responding to the question.

Just for clarification, there is no expectation on the part of this minister or

on the part of my ministry or the government that in creating the new Heritage

Trust, somehow some portion of the interest accrued from the $5 million that

we've endowed the trust with will be used for heritage sites. That will continue

to be the responsibility of government as opposed to…. They're two very

different things.

To respond

to your questions, because I don't want to be difficult about it, things like

when the facilities will open and close, hours of opening and all of those kind

of operational details, while likely to form a part of their business plan, are

issues that we would in large measure leave in the hands of the site operators

or site contractors. That having been said, I do want to underline that the

first and primary issue that my staff looked at in terms of evaluating the

requests for information or the requests for proposals was stewardship of the

sites. We fully expect that the sites are going to be managed in ways that will

celebrate, promote and maintain public access to and appreciation of the

wonderful cultural heritage that we have in British Columbia.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister can then just answer my last question in this

area, which is the relationship between the not-for-profit society and

municipalities. Again, media speculation was that there may be a potential for

downloading onto municipalities. What reassurances can he give against that?

[1515]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I never take exception to critics of the government having an

opportunity to bemoan theoretical downloading. I think it would be pretty much a

stretch to make that argument here. We certainly have never discouraged any

municipality from expressing an interest at request-for-information or

request-for-proposal stages in this. There is some municipal interest in some of

the sites, and we certainly welcome, encourage and try to foster that interest,

but there certainly has never been any explicit or implicit demand that

communities look at this. I think they, in most instances, are looking at these

as opportunities to build local tourism, to kind of bring the site closer into

the culture of the community. It's something that I think is valuable and

welcomed. From those who have taken an active interest in this, I haven't heard

any suggestion that they feel they're being downloaded upon. I think that

concern comes from rather more predictable critics of the government.

Sections

11 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 22,

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003,

reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Deputy

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G.

Abbott: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill

22, Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call for continued second reading debate on Bill 28.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTRY REVITALIZATION ACT

(continued)

Krueger: When we adjourned debate we had just heard from the urban

socialists with their particular rhetoric. I took the opportunity….

Interjection.

Krueger: The member points out there is only one urban socialist speaking in

the House anymore. That's a good thing. There are a lot of us in this House who

represent heartlands ridings, where these changes to forest policy are very

welcome good news.

I mentioned

a little bit earlier that the things that worked or appeared to work decades ago

with the so-called social contract haven't been working very well in the year

2003 or, really, all through the nineties. An American representative

regrettably referred to what he called Soviet-style forest policy here. We don't

agree with that characterization, but we do agree that when you're getting the

kind of dismal results we've been getting in British Columbia in the forest

industry despite all the advantages we have, it's time to have a look at those

results and look for ways to deliver better ones.

It is

bizarre that with the best wood available in the world competing with

fast-growing varieties grown in plantations elsewhere, which are so weak

compared to our wood that the construction companies in those areas actually

prefer to use our wood over theirs; the best technology available in the world;

the best ma-

[ Page 5703 ]

chinery in the world — in fact, manufactured right here in British Columbia

in places like Salmon Arm — and the best-educated workforce in the forest

industry in the world, somehow we have dropped $600 million per year in revenue

since 1997-98. The trend has not been positive.

[1520]

One of the

issues, of course, has been that most of our eggs are in one basket in the

marketplace — that being our good friends to the south, who have about 87

percent of our market. Of course, we have a good market in Japan, but it's

always been a wonder to me that we send our very best wood cut in places like

Vavenby, in my constituency, to Japan. I wonder why that is. What they do with

the finest wood we produce is mill it, turn it into things like banisters, doors

and window frames — things we could certainly be doing here. We have found

ourselves competing in primary manufacturing of dimensional lumber — 2-by-4s

and 2-by-6s — even now, these many decades later, when Third World countries

are able to compete head-to-head with us in those areas with much lower labour

costs and a much less educated workforce.

We're proud

of our primary wood manufacturing industry, proud that they have responded to

the many challenges and are doing as well as they are, but it's long since time

that we embraced the value-added industry more and the entrepreneurial spirit

here in British Columbia that would like to harness all those assets I spoke of

and really compete at a whole new level. I applaud the minister for the changes

he's made.

Unlike the

Leader of the Opposition, who spoke as an urban socialist, I speak for an area

that has real-life experiences with the problems that have existed in the forest

industry. Most notable and most recent for us is the closure of the Vavenby

Weyerhaeuser sawmill. That took away 184 of the best jobs in the North Thompson

Valley — the best paycheques gone. It's an economic impact something like

losing a hundred thousand of the best paycheques in the lower mainland with

several months' notice. It's devastating for people in Vavenby and all through

the North Thompson Valley. The ripples of that, of course, reach out all through

the valley's economy. People who count on their homes as their retirement

package have seen the value of their homes devaluated because of this very

unfortunate event. Of course, there was fear and tremendous upset in the North

Thompson Valley when this closure was announced.

I went up

to Clearwater, a little community where 400 people came out to talk to me and

the other elected people who had come up and representatives of the company

about their fears and their hopes and their desire for government to do some

changes that would help them cope with this economic catastrophe. I want to say

on the record that Weyerhaeuser has been a model corporate citizen in the way it

dealt with this closure. I accept that they had sound business reasons to do it

in order to be able to compete. They have to max out production at their

remaining three sawmills in the southern interior. I never thought they would

choose Vavenby if they had to close one of the four, but they did.

As I say,

they've got good reasons. One is that there isn't natural gas supplied in the

North Thompson Valley, so it was much more expensive for them to acquire the

necessary energy to run what was a very modern operation. They have been really

principled about the way they dealt with this whole unfortunate matter.

I'll talk a

little bit about some of the solutions we're coming up with, but I can tell you

that one of the reasons we're able to be confident about finding solutions and

we're actually putting a pretty substantial silver lining around this big black

cloud is our Minister of Forests, who listens. I've talked many times in this

House about how proud I am of a government that actually is listening to the

people who elected us. A structure has been set up where, through the government

caucus committees, we're able to feed input in. Ministers and the Premier pay

very close attention, and decisions are made with that input in mind.

I came back

from that meeting, and I wrote a letter to the minister and said that my

constituents are alarmed. They're saying that some of the answers are:

"We'd like to see more woodlots. We'd like to see more community forests.

Specifically we'd like to see a Clearwater community forest. We' like to see

better participation for the first nations people, the Secwepemc people"

— our people tend to refer to them as the Shuswaps — "all through our

area, but certainly the North Thompson Indian band, who've been tremendously

patient about that concern."

Chief

Nathan Matthew of the North Thompson Indian band, who's now the chair of the

Shuswap nation tribal council, was talking with me one time about their hope

that they would get a share of a 200,000-cubic-metre partition that the ministry

did. He said to me: "You know, really, Kevin, this is a guts-and-feathers

deal as far as we're concerned. We get some participation in these little

one-off deals, but we deserve a share of the cut." I always thought he was

right. That's what I heard at that meeting. It's one of the things I put in my

letter to the minister. I asked the minister to do what he could to facilitate

Weyerhaeuser's willingness to actually give up some of its AAC.

[1525]

They were

talking about sharing it with Slocan if Slocan could take some of their

displaced employees. They were also talking very generously about supporting

value-added enterprises that might be interested in their site, in their land

and in their equipment. I wrote the minister all these things, and he came to me

a few weeks later and said he thought he could support everything in my letter

except one thing. He never told me what that one was, so I'm counting on him for

all of it.

I can tell

you that this act and these policy changes that we're debating this week in the

legislature are really good news to a heartlands community — a place where

trees actually grow, which people cut and take to market. I always thought it

was quite a joke during the 1990s, when the NDP held power, that they had a

[ Page 5704 ]

thousand registered professional foresters living and working for government

right here in Victoria, and there hadn't been any logging during my whole term

in Victoria. People up in the North Thompson Valley live by logging and live by

the proceeds from the forest industry. For way too long now, they've been shut

out of new opportunities, and we have not been getting the value that we should

out of individual logs. It's been a real struggle for people looking to create

new opportunities.

Well, now

we have a government that has decided it's going to open up new opportunities

for those British Columbians far too long denied; a government that is going to

aggressively pursue new markets worldwide and has put the machinery and the

money in place to go after those; a government that is going to ensure

environmental standards remain here in British Columbia, the best of the

industry anywhere in the world; a government that will make sure that our

industry is no longer hamstrung by government and its arrangements. We're going

to be delivering an actual market system. What a novel concept. What a good

thing to finally be doing. We're going to be compensating private enterprise for

the changes to their private property with regard to takeback of tenure. We're

also going to be vastly increasing the value of the remaining 80 percent of

their tenure because of all the artificial constraints that are going to be

taken away — the shackles that are going to be knocked off the legs of

industry — so that they can actually flourish doing what they're good at.

For

example, we're no longer going to insist that if you are a manufacturing company

in this industry, you also have to be a logging company. Many of them don't want

to be. They had to play really artificial games in order to get some access to

fibre when they really didn't want to be loggers. That day is gone. We're going

to be stabilizing the industry, allowing it to modernize and to pursue the

markets that are out there. There are lots of markets worldwide. We're going to

be allowing them, of all things, to actually have a return on investment. I

believe we're going to see those Crown revenues increase once again.

Forestry in

British Columbia has never been a sunset industry. It never will be. It'll

always be an industry that's of tremendous value to British Columbians,

especially British Columbians out where I live, the people I represent from the

heartlands. It's been sad to see jobs drop from 100,000 in the late nineties to

just over 87,000 in the forest industry now. We can reverse that.

There's one

company in Kamloops that's called Paul Creek Slicing, and it slices white pine

cants — 32 slices to the inch — into veneer. Beautiful stuff. They splice it

back together. They put it on the face of particleboard furniture all through

the United States, down the west coast and also in Quebec and along the east

coast of North America. They can sell as much of that as they can cut. The only

limitation to them is that they haven't been able to get the white pine. We're

constantly scrambling, trying to find them the fibre that they need. In order to

get that fibre, they would have to bid on timber sales when, as I said, they

really didn't want to be loggers. They would log timber they weren't really

interested in and then be in a position of having to try to trade those logs for

white pine logs so they could finally get down to doing the business they were

actually there to do, which was slicing up white pine. They were ground very

hard by some of the licensees who had more timber than them. They had to give

three logs for every one white pine log. I always thought that was regrettable,

because they are willing to expand. They have the markets to expand. They have

around 200 employees. They're almost all women. It's very light work. They

really enjoy it. I've gone and visited them many times. Many of them used to be

on welfare; many are single moms.

By the time

Paul Creek Slicing is done with a thousand board feet of lumber, it is worth

$2,000 in gross domestic product, where a thousand board feet of 2-by-4s

fluctuates just over $200. It hasn't made sense that anybody is cutting white

pine into dimensional lumber when it could be going to an operation like that.

That's only one example. Everybody tells me that nobody can outbid a log home

builder when it comes to bidding for the logs they want. They have a terrible

time getting them. There are all sorts of value-added plants that are going to

benefit by the changes that are embraced by this legislation.

[1530]

I have a

lot of small-scale loggers in my constituency. It's been like beating my head

against the wall all through those five years — the last term of the NDP, when

I was in opposition — just finding a way to allow those people to work in the

bush. They have equipment. They know what they're doing. They're environmentally

sensitive too, but because of the tremendous regulatory overburden that the NDP

had imposed on this industry, the government couldn't find anybody to oversee

their work and put through the necessary paper. They were effectively shut out

of the bush.

I finally

talked Dave Zirnhelt into providing one officer through FRBC who would actually

oversee them for a couple years. We got a bunch of people back to work. At one

time I was told there were 100 salvage loggers operating, where many of them had

been on welfare in the past just because they weren't allowed to work. Lo and

behold, they do things like small portable sawmills. One of them developed a

contract for dry fir in Alberta; all that he could produce. They get tremendous

opportunities like that. Another one I heard of recently was that the oil patch

up in northern B.C. needed dry fir for corduroy road over the muskeg. It's the

only way they can get equipment in. They couldn't get any dry fir, so they were

bringing up oak wood from the United States and building corduroy road across

the muskeg with that. One of my little sawmills had an opportunity to bid on a

tremendous contract for supplying dry fir for that purpose.

We always

should have been really going after salvage logs. When we do it's a forest

health initiative, because if those dead trees are allowed to remain in

[ Page 5705 ]

place they often give rise to bug infestations. We've seen calamities

recently in British Columbia from those. They also become forest fire hazards. I

really believe in salvage logging. Again, I congratulate the minister because I

wasn't sure he believed in salvage logging at first, but he listened. He's

accepted the input he has. He's struck a committee of MLAs to bring on success

for salvage loggers. He's appointed the member for Prince George North to chair

that committee. Salvage loggers figure very prominently in the plans of this

government moving forward in this industry. I'm very, very pleased with that.

The

minister is freeing up the flow of fibre in British Columbia. He is providing a

new source of fibre, where people don't always have to go to the Crown begging

for a share of the tiny bit that wasn't already spoken for. About 98 percent of

the annual allowable cut in British Columbia has been really completely sewn up.

There hasn't been much to work with in trying to settle the legitimate

aspirations of first nations and all of these entrepreneurs who are bringing on

these tremendously job-productive new operations in British Columbia.

Existing

licensees will be able to sell portions of their tenure. What a good idea. What

a commonsense thing to do — to allow them to make their own business

decisions. This problem we've had with an oversupply of manufacturing capacity

and a shrinking timber supply won't be the case any longer when people actually

have the opportunity to be assured of fibre and can build the kind of new

processing plants that British Columbia needs to really maximize the use of

every log in B.C.

We did have

— I guess still do at the moment — the highest costs in our industry of

anywhere in North America — anywhere in the world, actually. I remember seeing

a sad statistic while we were in opposition — that in five years Sweden had

gone from 1 percent of the Japanese market to 17 percent at our expense. Our

industry had been hobbled by regulations that made us such a high-cost producer

of wood fibre. I'm glad to see the end of those days. It's great that we're

going to have an increase in the amount of wood available for auction, because

people ought to be able to bid on it and bid on the sizes and the species they

want. We ought to be able to prove that we are providing a legitimate evidence

of the actual market price. In all of these areas I'm absolutely delighted with

the legislation and with what the minister is doing.

[1535]

I was sorry

to see that the IWA were making the kind of comments they were about these

changes, because that is very old-fashioned thinking. We just can't continue to

pretend that what worked in the past is going to work in the future. The IWA has

been the one big disappointment in the community in the North Thompson Valley.

All the elected people working together, the industry people — whether it's

loggers or Weyerhaeuser itself or Slocan…. Everybody has been pitching in, but

the IWA repeatedly turned down opportunities to help create jobs for their

members who are going to be displaced from Vavenby. At one mill after another,

the IWA refused to make the necessary changes, for example, so that their

workers, their members, could work on Sundays in the remaining three mills —

work at straight time, granted, but it's still a job. A job at those wages, at

straight time, would be the envy of the world as far as the workers in this

industry elsewhere. But they wouldn't do it. In the end a number of people are

being laid off, having their jobs terminated, whom Weyerhaeuser would have

employed in one of those other mills if the IWA had been more flexible. The IWA

in those decisions caused their brothers and sisters to become unemployed

persons when they had the right to choose otherwise, and I very much regret

that.

I'm proud

of this government. I'm proud of this minister. I'm delighted with the fact that

we are making these changes. I support them wholeheartedly, and I congratulate

the government for moving in the right direction.

Harris: Like the previous member…. This is a great bill, and I want to

talk about all the good things about it. After listening to the Leader of the

Opposition this morning, I think there was some shock and awe here. Maybe I had

it. First of all, I couldn't believe the comments that she was referring to. At

the end of the day, after a nice bowl of soup at lunch, I realized that the

shock and awe…. I shouldn't have been in such shock at all. She never did get

it. They never got it in the past, and they still don't get it. They don't

understand the problems in this industry.

I listened

to some of the comments she made this morning — "lack of

discussion." I think she made reference that it's taken two years. I

actually think that when we took two years to talk about this thing with

industry, with labour, with communities, with log salvagers and with

associations, this minister had more meetings, went around this province more

often, talking to more people — as a matter of fact, probably…. People in my

riding would definitely say they wish that this had come sooner. In fact, it's

the right stuff, because we did take the time to consult. Two years, I think, is

the appropriate time because the product we've got here, in terms of legislation

that's going to set the framework for the future, is just an excellent piece of

legislation.

personally would like to thank the minister for the meeting he had in Terrace.

At our meeting we had everybody there. We had a representative from every one of

the first nations communities in my riding. We had labour there — the IWA. We

had pulp mill workers there. We had the sawmills. We had value-added people. We

had elected municipal representatives. We had people just out of the community.

It was a great meeting. It was a great exchange of information, an opportunity

for the minister to talk about what he was proposing and for him to get some

feedback.

Anyway, it

was a great meeting and a real opportunity for people to have the input that the

Leader of the Opposition says never existed. When she talks

[ Page 5706 ]

about no input and no consultation, she just hasn't followed anything that's

gone on. It is always, as it usually is, more about politics and less about the

results.

She talks

about loss of jobs in rural communities. She talks about mill closures.

"Communities will be devastated." I don't know where she's been living

for the last ten years. I really don't.

I talk

about the fact that in one of my other lives I was the board member of Local

171. It had a membership of about 5,000. It covered the Queen Charlottes on the

north coast, down to Bella Coola from Prince Rupert and right into the Terrace

area. That local actually doesn't even exist today. It's been gobbled up and

amalgamated as its membership dropped. That's actually what's been going on in

rural communities for a long time.

I am not

surprised when that member doesn't know what's been going on and is surprised

and doesn't see a need to change. She talks about reallocation as if it's the

great evil, as if all of a sudden, by taking 20 percent of the timber away, it

just vanishes into the air. I guess the reciprocal is that she's implying that

the present allocation system works absolutely, perfectly fine. Nothing can be

further from the truth. It's time to wake up and smell the roses. It's just

unbelievable.

[1540]

She made

reference to Skeena Cellulose in her comments. Terrace and Skeena are in the

heart of my riding. Skeena Cellulose is an operation that contains one pulp

mill, four sawmills, one TFL and five licences, and covers three ridings. People

that used to work there don't work there today in most places. That's because

the workers thought that their union seniority gave them job security. The Bill

13 contractors thought that that legislative tool gave them job security. The

communities thought that having cut control as it was, as it is today still,

gave them the security of knowing that those facilities would run and their

taxes would come in.

Lo and

behold, they all forgot the one key ingredient. If the company doesn't make

money, all the legislative tools in the world aren't going to work. They didn't

work there, and they haven't worked there — well, three times in the last five

years and probably seven or eight times over its history.

You know,

it is time for a change because the status quo doesn't work. That's why this is

such a great piece of legislation. The minister, when he got up, talked about

two things that I'm going to spend a little bit of time on and will probably

repeat myself a lot about: access to fibre and log markets. That's what's so

critical about this.

When the

Leader of the Opposition gets up and rants about the fact that we're a

big-corporation government, I get quite a kick out of that. What have we done?

We've gone out to major licensees and taken 20 percent back. We've used a

formula for calculating compensation that her previous government put in place.

Then we put a number to it that we brought to the public and did it in a very

open manner, so that there are no secrets here. We're going to reallocate that

timber to small communities. In most cases, I suspect it will go to small,

community-based organizations, whether it's community licences or small business

sales or woodlots. I mean, that somehow doesn't resonate like the big-company

government that we are. You know, this rhetoric just goes on and on, and I got

to admit it wears pretty thin on me.

What else

have I got here? This bill really finally puts in the hands of government the

tools that we need to start to revitalize this industry, and the minister

referred to it. That's the trees. That's what this is about. It's about trees.

That's where it starts.

For people

like me, it has been a long time coming. This legislation and this series of

legislation we're putting through around forestry are in fact the reason I ran.

It was an opportunity to start to let local communities have impact on the

resources that surround them. That's actually what we're about.

Our

communities were built on this industry. They're going to be there a long way

into the future, but they can't be exactly the same industry they were in the

past. Every day in my office — literally every day — I have salvage loggers

coming in or phase loggers, first nations, full-phase contractors. Every single

walk of life in my community is tied to this forest industry, and they all have

these creative ideas of things they can do, different widgets they can make.

I have

value-added mills in my community that aren't operating today, and all of them

have the same problem: no fibre, no access to fibre. Why isn't there access?

Because we as a government don't have the tools. We can sit there and tell them

it's a great idea. It's the kind of thing we should be doing. We can support

them in principle and support them in theory. We can support them in everything

we want, but the one thing we can't support them with is what they need: access

to fibre.

When you

get that access to fibre out there and you create an industry of harvesters….

People should remember the harvest sector is a sector that actually creates the

most employment. It's also the sector of the industry that has the most capital

investment. Yet you get those people out there harvesting logs, you get them in,

and you create a log market. Today in Terrace we actually have a log market. We

have it because to some degree we have been able to take some of the fibre that

belonged to SCI and get it out there for people to work.

It is that

access to log markets that allows people who want to build a better widget to

get access to fibre. This is the way you change the industry. You change it by

bringing more players into it. When that member talks about how this is going to

centralize the industry into single core companies, nothing could be further

from the truth. I can't believe for one moment that a community is going to get

a community-based forest licence and turn right around and sell it to

Weyerhaeuser or that a first nations community is going to go out there and get

a first nations forest licence and turn around and sell it to Weyerhaeuser. They

want these licences because they want to have impact on their

[ Page 5707 ]

communities. They want some say in the resources that surround them. These

are exactly the right kind of tools.

In the

timber sales program, which is going to see a significant increase in fibre,

those are community-based businesses that in most cases are going to be logging

that. These are the community-based businesses that buy locally. They hire

locally. Theirs are the families that are going to live in our communities, fill

our schools and provide us with that mass of people to support the small

business and our chamber of commerce. These are great, innovative people, and we

shouldn't undersell them.

[1545]

Where I

live up there, you know, we like to say a lot that we don't think all the

geniuses are sitting around tables in the urban centres all the time. We have

some incredibly creative people that live in our communities and I would say

some of the sharpest minds in the world, especially when it comes to this

industry, because we live it. We live it, we're in it, we're around it, we smell

it, and we touch it. These people have great ideas. They're innovators. In many

cases, they understand niche markets.

We have an

individual, Mario, in Terrace. All he needs is about one or two spruce trees a

month. It takes him two or three people and three or four days to get them out

of the timber and get them to his yard. Then when he's in the yard, he cuts them

into pieces that are 18 and 20 inches long if it's the right fibre, and they go

to make guitars. This is one tree that employs probably half a dozen people for

a week. This is the kind of high-value product we have to get.

I was at

the member for North Island — not North Island; we try to go to his riding

every once in a while, but it's too far — or North Coast last week in Port

Clements….

An Hon.

Member: Come to the heartlands.

Harris: Come to the heartlands. Foothills.

In Port

Clements in the Queen Charlottes I was there with a friend of mine, Randy

O'Brien, who has a logging operation and is a small contractor over there. He

just spent half a million dollars, and he's installed a log peeler. Not only

will it allow him to make poles out of the cedar he gets, but it will allow him

to actually now get into the log house product line.

This is a

great business for them over there. The Charlottes are actually blessed with

that product. But you know what? He's got the same problem everybody else does.

He's got no access to fibre. There are sawmills over there that, because of

timber-harvesting and timber-processing agreements that force all that timber to

have to come down to mills down here, can't get any wood.

When I hear

people tell me mills are going to close…. This isn't about mill closures. This

whole system is about: your mill just may not make 2-by-4s anymore. It's not

that you're going to lose a mill; it's that you have an opportunity here to have

two or three different kinds of mills. This is the kind of innovation we have in

our communities.

I hear this

urban rhetoric, and you know what? I'm just tiring of it, because you know what?

We know how to run this business. We know how to do it right. We know how to

turn our communities around and get them growing again. This is the kind of

legislation that's going to do that. It's going to do it for each and every one

of our rural communities right across the northland. It's about embracing it,

not fighting it all the time.

I think the

previous member talked about the fact that we live in a world where our forest

policies are 50 years old, but the world is a lot different today than it was 50

years ago. It's that new competitive market and that entrepreneurial edge we're

going to need if we're going to compete in the global marketplace. I think this

bill starts that process. It starts it by providing the access to fibre. It

starts it by opening up a whole bunch of new doors to access fibre by doubling

woodlots through salvage programs, through community licences, through the

timber sales program, through first nations initiatives.

Another

creative way of accessing fibre is going to be through a new rolling cut control

period, which doesn't allow people to carry the cut forward. Another access

point for market opportunities is going to come through the ability of licensees

to sell off. This is a great opportunity for people in the value-added sector.

One of the other aspects I like about how this bill has been crafted…. I think

that is the right word — crafted — because it's the result of talking to a

huge number of people from every sector and trying to accommodate where you can

in a way that's measured but allows people to create a transition to what I

think their future really looks like.

I want to

end by just sort of saying to the minister that I think you've done a great job

of putting this bill together. I think you did a great job of consulting, and I

think it is in fact very much the start of the right tool for rural communities

to start to take back charge of their lives. This is the kind of stuff that's

going to help us start to rebuild the population by actually introducing

entirely new industries to our communities.

On that

note, Mr. Minister, congratulations on an excellent bill.

[1550]

Visser: I was reminded today — when the Leader of the Opposition, who sits

in front of me here, was speaking — about the other day when we were talking

about her misguided and rather irresponsible private member's bill for closed

containment fish farms. When she was talking, she introduced or made reference

to some friends she had in the gallery who were here from the Suzuki Foundation,

and I thought that was really kind of her to acknowledge her speechwriters. I

was upset that she didn't acknowledge her speechwriters today from the Western

Canada Wilderness Committee or others.

You know

what? I'm from the north end of Vancouver Island — that's the heartland of

British Colum-

[ Page 5708 ]

bia — and I can tell you that when I hear her, as the Leader of the

Opposition, stand up and ask if people like me will have the courage to speak to

a bill like this, or say that we'd better not speak to this bill because it will

be reported in our papers back home, you know what? I'm going to do it, because

this is probably one of the best pieces of legislation that this government has

tabled today.

It's part

of a package, a package that started two years ago with the election of this

government, a package that has been guided by this Forests minister — through

the results-based code, through countless meetings, through the direct award

piece for first nations, through all of that stuff — to get to where we are

today, revitalizing British Columbia's forests and forest industry. This is

stuff to be proud of.

When she

stands up and speaks, it is painfully obvious to all of us — whether you're

from Skeena, the North Coast, the north Thompson, all of British Columbia —

that she doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to trees and

forests.

Interjections.

Visser: The Kootenays — it's that place by Alberta.

You know,

I've been involved in the industry for a long time, and I've represented that

industry's interests for a long time. When I talk about the industry, you know

who I talk about? I talk about that guy that runs a log loader. I talk about the

guy that drives the truck. I talk about that forester that lays out the road,

that cruises the timber, that does the ecology studies. I talk about that

biologist who looks at endangered species and how they interact with the logging

plans of the tree farm licence. I talk about those people that coach those

hockey teams, that take their kids to school in the morning. I talk about those

people that join Rotary, that form the Lions Clubs, that volunteer in their

communities, that live there, that feel a profound connection not only to their

community and not only to their industry but to the forests and trees around

them.

I come from

a part of the world that's a forest exporter. We export. We have one sawmill on

northern Vancouver Island — one sawmill. We're responsible for probably 60

percent of the cut on the coast of British Columbia, and we have one sawmill.

That's not a comment on whether it's bad or good. It is a comment about

something that's fundamentally important to this bill.

This bill,

and this series of bills and every step we've taken so far, recognizes a

historical fact that in the infancy of this province and in our desire to build

rural communities and our desire to spread ourselves out amongst all of this

land, we thought we should build a mill and grant access to trees. In essence,

what we're doing is building policy that took us from the mill to the tree.

Fifty years later, 40 years later, 30 years later, that's not going to work

anymore. The member for Skeena talked about how that's not going to work

anymore, how that didn't work for him and his people and the people he

represents and works with and knows.

[1555]

I'm

encouraged by this shift. It didn't work, so we're going to change. What we're

doing now, and this is what this bill is about…. We're going to make policy

starting with the tree, and we're going to take it to the mill. Now, people say

that's fairly simple, and I agree. But in that simplicity is something very

profound.

The member

for Skeena is right. The harvesting sector does employ more people. The

harvesting sector is as capitalized as and probably more capitalized than the

manufacturing sector, but what I want to add to that comment is that it all

begins in the harvesting sector. It all begins with an understanding that in

rural British Columbia, in the heartlands of British Columbia and on northern

Vancouver Island, we need forest policy that encourages us to grow the trees, to

make them grow faster, to make them grow better, to utilize that resource in a

way that's more acceptable. That's what this bill does.

This bill

gives effect to what I think are three very important things. It requires that

large licensees grant back to the Crown 20 percent of their harvest levels so

that we can reallocate it to encourage new entrants, to encourage new

opportunities, to meet commitments that we have to first nations — first

nations on northern Vancouver Island that are involved in the forest industry in

ways that are remarkable and other first nations there that want to share in the

prosperity and those successes.

It gives

effect to and allows us to distribute fibre in an auction system where those

that are willing to pay the most for that tree, so that we who own and live and

work near those trees can get the return we deserve for those trees…. That

auction system will allow it to occur. It provides for woodlots. Those people

can stand there amongst their trees, and they can pick up a handful of soil and

let it sift through their fingers and tell you for hours endless stories about

that soil and its relationship to that tree and how that tree can grow faster if

only we could get out of the way.

This is

good stuff. This gives effect to the idea that communities are important and

that communities like Sayward, like Gold River, like Tahsis, like Zeballos and

like Holberg can embrace the notion of community forests if it is something they

would like, if it is something that community thinks is important to them. They

want to embrace as a community the relationship they have to those trees. We

have the tools to do it now. We didn't before.

The

previous government paid lip service to it all. We've seen some of the most

heinous words expressed to this industry I represent, to these folks I

represent, by the previous government that was supposed to be such a friend of

that industry. The former Premier said that not one single job will be lost on

Vancouver Island due to a land use decision. It's not true. We've lost whole

communities because of land use decisions. "The jobs and timber accord will

create 40,000 new forest

[ Page 5709 ]

industry jobs." We have lost 13,000 jobs since they said that.

We can't

put a number on these things. It would be a fallacy to try to put a number on

these things. It's not what this government does. We build the fundamentals, and

we do it in a way that makes sense, so when we require that 20 percent gets

taken back, we also say we will compensate fairly for it. The bill gives effect

to this.

This bill

gives effect to the notion that governments have interfered with rights that had

been granted in the past and that we need to respect those and understand those

if we want to maintain a relationship with the investment community that at the

end of the day, like the member for Skeena says, provides us with the capital to

access all of those trees and provides us with the capital to have those jobs.

What I think is most important in this bill is the setting up of the B.C.

Forestry Revitalization Trust.

[1600]

I'll come

back to that in a second, because I want to talk a little bit about this

consultation process. The member is right. You know what? There wasn't a royal

commission. The Leader of the Opposition is right. We didn't hire a whole bunch

of people to traipse around the province holding huge public meetings, rehashing

everything over and over with endless rhetoric. Do you know what we did? We went

out and did it ourselves. The minister went out and did it himself. All of the

private members went out and did it themselves with the stakeholders in their

communities. We talked to them. For two years we talked to them. We talked to

them about results-based codes. We talked to them about all facets of forest

protection, forest fire protection — everything. This is a complex and

important industry. We gave this industry, those people — all of them — the

respect they deserve in this process.

We talked

to the unions. We brought them in. There was a process where the licensees on

the coast; the union on the coast represented by Dave Haggard — IWA — the

contractors on the coast and government went into a room for a year and talked

about how we can make this industry better. We hired Dr. Peter Pearse to produce

a report to give us a diagnosis of the state of the industry today, and we used

that as the template to move forward, to base the discussion on.

For two

years I was in every community in my riding talking about the things Dr. Pearse

talked about, the things that the minister talked about. I'd go, and 40 or 50

engineers and foresters would show up in an evening. We'd talk about what we

thought was important for the forests of British Columbia and what was important

for the Holbergs and the Tahsises and the Gold Rivers of British Columbia.

When I go

home tomorrow and when I go home to, as the member of the opposition says,

"face the wrath of the people," you know what? They're going to say:

"My God, Rod. You finally got on with it. You talked about it for two

years."

This is

thoughtful stuff. More importantly, this is meaningful stuff. It's meaningful

because when we listen to those people…. The IWA said: "You know what?

We've got an old workforce. We can't be productive and competitive in this

global industry with such an old workforce. We need something to help. We need

pension bridging." So in this trust is embedded the idea that pension

bridging is central.

It hasn't

been done before. The previous government's response to all the folks that were

laid off in this industry was to shrink the basket, lay people off and retrain

them as welders. Well, out where I live, the welders work in the forest

industry. If they've shrunk the basket and laid a bunch of people off, they

don't need quite as many welders as they once did. But thanks for retraining

them all. They're all in Alberta now. We want to bring them home.

This bill

isn't about shrinking the fibre basket. This bill is about redistribution. This

bill is about opportunity. This bill is about respect for the industry, respect

for the communities and respect for those trees.

This is

good legislation. This is good for the province of British Columbia. I'm very

proud of this minister, and I'm very proud of our Premier, and I think we're

going to go places with stuff like this.

Christensen: It's indeed a privilege to be able to rise in the House and

speak in second reading to the Forestry Revitalization Act, Bill 28. The

announcements made by the minister yesterday, of which this bill is a critical

part, show that this is a government committed to the forests of British

Columbia, to the people who work and play in those forests and to the many

communities throughout the province that rely on the many values that our

forests provide to us.

Yesterday

the minister announced a broad range of reforms necessary to revitalize the

forest industry in B.C. and put it on a footing for sustainability so that not

only can my generation rely on the great values that forestry provides to this

province and the great benefit it provides on a wide range of values, but so

that my children can rely on it as they grow up and, in fact, so my

grandchildren can. It's a long, long overdue step that the minister and this

government have taken.

[1605]

There has

been a lot of discussion on a wide range of issues in the 21 months since this

government was sworn into office in June 2001, but I'm pretty confident that

there is no issue and no area of policy that has been discussed more and

consulted on more than forestry — and rightly so, given the importance of this

industry in every single corner of this province and in the middle part too.

There's

been broad consultation. I know every member on the government side has spoken

with their constituents about what is important in their constituency around

forestry, whether it's forest harvesting values, whether it's recreational

values, whether it's new industries relying on getting access to the forest

resource so they can prosper, whether it's industries that have been there for

years facing challenges in how they operate. We've all heard from our

constituents around forestry. Certainly, in my experience many of

[ Page 5710 ]

the folks who have come to talk to me have actually got a later opportunity

to speak with the minister himself or certainly with officials from his office.

I do very much commend both the staff within the Ministry of Forests and in

particular this Minister of Forests for making himself available to many, many

people around the province, many stakeholders if not all stakeholders in every

single part of the province to discuss these very, very important issues.

I want to

extend, as well, a thanks to my constituents who have met with me, who have

taken me out into the forests to show me what they do out there — and

thankfully brought me back, didn't leave me out there. They've ushered me safely

through their processing facilities so that I get a better understanding of

what's happening there. They've told me about the challenges they face in

ensuring their business is going to succeed and in ensuring they're able to make

a continued living in forestry in this province. They've certainly allowed me,

somebody who does not have an extensive background in forestry, to come to

better understand the many challenges for those that are working in the forest

industry and in different parts of forestry, the many factors that are at play

and the conflicting interests that are there. I do very much want to extend

thanks to all of those constituents who have taken the time to do that, because

certainly it has been of immeasurable value to me.

As I've

said, there's a great diversity of stakeholders in the forest industry

throughout the province. In my own constituency of Okanagan-Vernon we've got a

good representation of pretty well all those stakeholder groups. We certainly

have major licensees who have been there for years and have provided a great

deal of value to my community, who are very strong corporate citizens in the

many causes they support and who provide employment and a good living to many

people in my constituency. We have the remanufacturing industry that continues

to grow, notwithstanding that they have been particularly hammered by the

softwood lumber tariffs. We have an increasing number of value-added businesses

that are seeing new opportunities with forest-based products and finding markets

for those products around the world. We've got log home builders that are making

world-class products and, again, finding markets around the world. We've got

businesses cutting and packaging firewood and, in fact, sending that all around

this continent. We've got logging contractors, we've got woodlots, and we have

what has become a very dear part of my constituency to me and those who have in

fact taught me a lot. We have salvage loggers in my constituency.

With that

broad range of folks working in forestry in one way or another, there's a huge

diversity of interests. Those are strongly vested interests that have been there

for a long time, in many cases, and there are very strongly held opinions. I am

thankful people have expressed those strongly held opinions to me and have

explained to me the importance of their

part in the industry, and I very much

respect those opinions. I've learned very quickly to very much appreciate the

deep commitment and dedication of those many people who are working in our

forests.

[1610]

What's

become abundantly clear to me is that the future of any participant in our

forest industry is wholly dependent on access to fibre. Over the long history of

the practice of forestry in this province — and it's a long and honoured

history — we've developed a myriad of rules, regulations and legislation that

have a very direct impact on the distribution of fibre in this province. Quite

frankly, from what I can see, it really has nothing to do with allowing the

value of a particular tree to be maximized and to go to its best end use.

Yesterday

the minister announced changes to cut control, to appurtenancy, to the

subdivision and sale of forest licences. All of those are going to have some

arguments around them, but all of them will facilitate the market operating to

ensure that each tree is put to its best and most valuable use. If we strip away

all the other stuff and we ask what we would want to do if we were just starting

a forest industry in British Columbia today, I can't help but conclude that one

of the number one things we would want to do is ensure that if we're going to

cut down a tree, we get the maximum value out of that, we get the best product

out of that, and we get the best end use out of that particular tree. Many of

those changes are dealt with in Bill 28, and I certainly look forward to

commenting on those more specifically in the coming days during second reading

debate on Bill 28.

The

minister also announced new and expanded opportunities for first nations, which

is a critically important aspect of these announcements, particularly as we move

forward in improving our relationship with first nations in this province — as

well as an increased allocation of timber to woodlots and to community forests.

I want to comment a little bit on those aspects just briefly. In respect of

community forests, there's a community in my riding called the village of Lumby.

The village of Lumby, unfortunately, is a community that…. It's a wonderful

community, wonderful people, hard-working people, but they're a community that

suffered as a consequence of what's happened around forestry over the last

decade. They are a community that has lost not one, not two, but three mills

over the course of the last decade — two of those since 1997. It's,

unfortunately, one of many communities that was home to one or more of the 27

mills that have closed in this province since 1997.

The

minister's announcement of the available fibre for community forests and

woodlots comes as extremely good news for a community like Lumby. When they lost

their Weyerhaeuser mill back around 1997, that community identified a community

forest as one of the things they felt they needed to ensure that they continued

to be a community that thrived on forestry in this province. Well, guess what.

There's a good bunch of people out there who worked very, very hard over a

number of months and years to get a community

[ Page 5711 ]

forest. Under the previous government they couldn't do it.

Now, I

can't stand here and guarantee that Lumby is going to get a community forest as

a consequence of these changes, but I can tell you one thing for sure. They've

got a heck of a lot better chance of getting one now that there's fibre

available for it, now that there's a government in place that recognizes the

value of that fibre to communities around the province and a government and a

minister willing to work with them to ensure that community forests are an

integral and important part of forestry as we move into the future.

When it

comes to woodlots out in Lumby, there's another unique thing going on. There's

certainly a number of folks who have woodlots and do a wonderful job of managing

those, but there's a bit of a unique program in that Charles Bloom Secondary

School, the high school in Lumby, has a forestry program, and they have a

woodlot. Unfortunately, I haven't quite got out there to see the woodlot, but I

certainly plan to do that in the next couple of months. I was speaking with the

principal just last week, and he indicated that they were going to have a bit of

an open house to show off the woodlot. Unfortunately, it is a day I'm down here

in the Legislature, but I will make a point of getting out to visit the woodlot.

[1615]

I know one

thing about that woodlot. This comes from speaking with the folks who work with

the students. That woodlot provides an extremely valuable experience for the

students at Charles Bloom Secondary School, who often have a history in their

families of working in the forest industry. This is their introduction to new

opportunities in harvesting and in what you can do on the land in forestry. It's

a wonderful factor in the education program provided in school district 22. I am

hopeful that, certainly with the announcements made by the minister, perhaps

that same opportunity can be extended to other schools around the province that

may be interested in providing their students with those same very beneficial

experiences.

Now, I'd be

remiss if I didn't mention small-scale salvage. As I indicated earlier, that's

something near and dear to my heart. I think — and I've said it in the House

before — even prior to being elected, one of the first groups that got a hold

of me when they knew I was going to be running in the last election were the

small-scale salvagers out in Cherryville in the eastern part of my riding. They

wanted to ensure that I understood some issues in the forests. I'm very thankful

to them. I remember sitting with them initially, and they explained to me what

they did. I said: "Well, this is a bit of a no-brainer. This program has to

expand; it has to succeed. It employs so many families. It provides such benefit

to our community and to the forest itself." I'm very thankful to them for

explaining all that.

Yesterday

the minister announced that the government will introduce legislation to create

a new form of salvage tenure called community salvage licence, which will allow

communities to take an enhanced role in the small-scale salvage industry if they

want to. I know the minister mentioned the interests of the North Okanagan

regional district in his comments on second reading of Bill 28. I thank him for

that. I know, certainly, the minister has worked very hard with the regional

district to ensure that we can move forward.

Quite

frankly, this is a textbook example of a government listening to MLAs, who

listen to…. You know, I listened to my community and sat down with the

minister and said: "Hey, this sounds like a really good idea." The

minister met with those folks as well and, recognizing the value that's there

and the interest that's there in the community, then said: "How do we make

it happen?" Not, "What are the many difficulties in terms of making it

happen?" but: "How do we make it happen?" That's what good

government should do. I'm very thankful to the minister for the time he spent

with me in discussing it and certainly the time he spent with my constituents in

discussing it.

Getting

back to the specifics of Bill 28. What Bill 28 is, is the catalyst that's going

to make everything else happen. It is what facilitates getting more fibre out

there, so these other potential uses of that fibre can be acted on throughout

the province — whether that's for community forests, woodlots, first nations,

additional fibre going to value-added facilities, the wide diversity of

potential uses. Bill 28 is what facilitates that. It is the foundation on which

everything else is going to work.

What Bill

28 signals is that a new day is dawning for those who want to work in the forest

industry in British Columbia. Forestry is not a sunset industry in this

province; it's a sunrise industry. We're going to have a diversified and

sustainable forest industry in this province that maximizes the value of each

tree cut, that produces a wide variety of products and that leads the world in

product innovation and environmental stewardship.

It's going

to take some time. It's going to take some adjustment to get there. It's going

to take a new way of thinking. We have wonderful forest industry players in this

province that have been doing things a certain way for a long time. Like

anything, when you make a relatively dramatic shift in what the ground rules are

going to be, it's going to take some time for people to get their heads around

that and figure out how to operate and take advantage of that in the future.

There's no question in my mind that the folks working in forestry in this

province are very capable of doing that. I think we have very, very good things

to look forward to.

I'm proud

to be part of a government that in developing a plan to revitalize the forest

has clearly listened to MLAs from around the province, to people working in the

many parts of the forest industry and to communities around the province. The

Minister of Forests said this morning that he was proud of what has been

accomplished in introducing this legislation and the announcements made

yesterday. This minister has every right to be proud. The changes initiated by

Bill 28 are monumental, and they are long, long overdue. I very much look

forward to working with the minister over the ensuing months, certainly with my

caucus colleagues and with my constituents to ensure that as we

[ Page 5712 ]

move forward with this new dawn of forestry in this province, British

Columbia and all its citizens are the ones who benefit.

[1620]

Bell: I'm going to try and be brief here, but I think it's very suitable,

actually, that we have a number of young individuals in the gallery today,

because this bill is about creating a future for you up there. That's what this

bill is about.

For years

this province has not had trees for its future generations. We've tied our trees

up in the hands of a few individuals, a few corporations, and if a new young

person came along and wanted to develop a business, they wouldn't be able to do

that. What this bill is all about is creating that opportunity for our future

generations to make their careers and their lives in the forest sector. I

certainly congratulate the minister for his efforts. I think he's done an

excellent job here.

Let's just

review for a moment what this particular bill, Bill 28, is all about. This is

about: how do we compensate forest companies when we remove something of value

that they currently are contractually entitled to? I think it's worth looking

back in history for a moment, if we may, and two words come immediately to mind

for me when we think about compensating forest companies. Those two words, of

course, would be "Carrier" and "lumber," because the courts

very clearly spoke in the Carrier Lumber case, not even a year ago, about what

compensation should most appropriately be given to a forest company when tenure

is removed for that company.

This

government recognizes that there is an entitlement and there is a value to

tenure, and if you're going to remove tenure from a forest company or from

anyone, for that matter, there is compensation that is entitled to that

individual company. That's what this is all about. I think that's extremely

important, because rather than burying our heads in the sand and suggesting that

there is no compensation required and that we can simply legislate it away, and

then fight through the courts over the years and have the courts tell us,

"No, actually, you're wrong. That company is entitled to

compensation," we've been upfront with people. We said that there's a cost

to making this change. There's a cost to creating the future for these young

folks in our gallery today and saying to them that they're going to have the

types of opportunities that some of the older members of this House, such as the

member for Peace River North, may have had. I think there was a little bit of

tenure still available when he was in his childhood, although I'm not positive

that would be the case.

Interjections.

P. Bell:

No, the whole province wasn't available at that point.

You know,

the years of inactivity, in terms of dealing with this compensation issue and in

terms of dealing with tenure takeback…. The previous government has paid lip

service to the issue of tenure takeback. They've talked about it; people have

for years. There have been many reports delivered, certainly to committees of

this House, that suggest it's appropriate and it makes good sense for us to take

some of that tenure back that was originally signed perhaps in the fifties or

sixties, and put it back out on the open marketplace and see what you can create

with it. I think it's a very exciting time in our province when we do that.

Now, the

Leader of the Opposition said earlier that this is a giveaway — that we're

rewarding our friends in industry, and we're simply handing dollars out the

door. Well, what are we going to do with this volume? What are we going to do

with this tenure? What are we going to do with these trees, these roughly eight

million cubic metres per year that we're going to make available? She suggests

that we're simply rewarding large corporations. Well, we're taking that tenure.

Yes, we're going to compensate companies for it, but what are we going to do

with it? We're going to take that tenure, and we're going to sell it on the open

marketplace. We're going to award it to first nations to help build certainty

around the land base so that we can move forward as a society.

This isn't

just a good business decision for first nations. It's not just a good business

decision for forestry. It's also a good business decision for anything that

relates to tenure on the land base — whether it be a mining operation, a

tourism operation, an energy operation, a trapping operation. Anything that

requires tenure over the land base can benefit from certainty over the land

base. When you create capacity in the first nations by taking timber and working

with first nations to create wealth, to create jobs in their community, to put

people back to work, you in the end have the certainty over the land base that

you need.

[1625]

We're going

to take some of that timber. We're going to sell it competitively on the

marketplace, allow people to create wealth and allow people to create jobs

through it. We're going to take some of that tenure, and we're going to divide

it out amongst first nations in order for us to build certainty over the land

base.

Another

very exciting opportunity the minister speaks about is the ability to expand the

woodlot program. I have many friends that have woodlots in the Prince George

area. The member for Okanagan-Vernon said earlier that there's a high school

program in Lumby that has a woodlot. There's also a high school program in

Mackenzie, actually, attached to the Mackenzie Secondary School, that has a

woodlot. I have worked with the teacher, worked with the students and seen the

woodlot — very progressive activity. Those kids are coming out of school when

they graduate, and they're finding jobs in the forest industry — good,

high-paying jobs.

There's

another great example of how woodlots can contribute to society. As I said

earlier, I have several friends, and they're great stewards of the land base. I

don't think there's anyone who does a better job on the land base than woodlot

owners, because they really understand. I have one particular friend who has a

[ Page 5713 ]

woodlot, and she, I think, has named most of the trees on the woodlot.

They're not all named, but she certainly knows many of them. Actually, when I

helped her harvest one year, I felt very honoured because she named one of the

trees after me.

An Hon.

Member: The one she cut down? [Laughter.]

P. Bell:

I must say that the tree was rather stout, large at the trunk and had very

little on top. But it was truly a great specimen of a spruce tree, and that tree

now, I'm sure, is residing partly in some homes, perhaps here in British

Columbia, in the form of 2-by-4s. I felt very honoured that she would name that

tree after me prior to cutting it down, although I'm not sure why she cut it

down once it was named after me. However, I guess that's part of the deal.

Woodlot

owners are tremendous stewards over the land base. But community forests are

another significant opportunity for the heartlands of British Columbia to

participate in the economy of forestry in this province. The heartlands

communities have asked for years and years — certainly going well beyond our

election — to participate in the economy, in the wealth that is produced in

forestry. This is a very unique and special opportunity, when they have the

opportunity to gain access to community forests. I think that's an excellent

idea on the part of the minister.

addition, there's the small-scale salvage program which the member for

Okanagan-Vernon spoke to, the committee that I will be chairing. I'm very

excited about that. That really puts timber in the hands of small operators. As

little as 6,000 cubic metres per year can employ three or four people in the

harvesting sector. That's significant employment when you spread that over the

entire province.

Before I

close, I want to say something that I think is probably more significant than

anything else. This Minister of Forests has truly been inclusive in this

process. I can tell you that as I saw this unfold over the last year or year and

a half. There has been criticism that we haven't moved more quickly in terms of

getting to this destination or at least on this journey which we started on

yesterday, I guess, when this bill was introduced. But this Forests minister has

been more inclusive, in my opinion, than any other Forests minister in the

history of British Columbia. He's listened to the members throughout the House.

He's taken time out of his very, very busy

schedule to pull together groups of

members who have spent time working in the forest industry, and he's always had

an ear to listen to the concerns we've expressed to him.

[1630]

I can tell

you that when I first opened up the briefi