2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Wayne Strelioff

R. Fleming

J. Yap

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006

(Bill M205)

R. Chouhan

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Mental illness

C. Wyse

Canadian Federation of Independent

Business

J. Yap

Homelessness in B.C.

D. Routley

B.C. Rail investment partnership

J. Rustad

Karst caves

S. Fraser

Future of steelhead stocks

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Emergency services at Mount Saint

Joseph Hospital

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Cubberley

J. Kwan

M. Farnworth

Funding for Kootenay hospitals

K. Conroy

Hon. G. Abbott

Appointment of Bill Jones to

Agricultural Land Commission

B. Ralston

Hon. P. Bell

Appointments to Agricultural Land

Commission

M. Karagianis

Hon. P. Bell

Weed control on E&N rail line

S. Fraser

Hon. B. Penner

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, annual report, 2005

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

A. Horning

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

S. Fraser

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and

the Olympics (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

G. Gentner

S. Simpson

M. Farnworth

[ Page 4279 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: It is an honour today to introduce some women from my constituency who are here today to lobby the government and the opposition on some very important issues that are affecting women and children in my community: Judi Filion, Lorri Watt, Lorraine Logan, Leah Paxon, Remi Adejumo and Cherene Groundwater. Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I ask the House today to please join me in welcoming Dr. Butch Kamena, from the department of political science at Western Washington University, and a bright group of fourth-year political science students. Dr. Kamena teaches a Canadian government class at Western Washington U., which has just celebrated Canada Week from April 24 to 29 with a full range of events. I applaud such initiatives because they do provide opportunities to improve understanding and cooperation between our two countries. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming the students and Dr. Kamena from Washington State.

[1405]

D. Thorne: I have the honour today to introduce three groups of women that are here in Victoria to lobby their MLAs on issues of importance to them. I'll introduce them one at a time. There are about 120 women in total.

The first group of women is the B.C. Federation of Labour women's lobby. They're here to lobby around women's economic equality. I have the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia here to talk to their MLAs about child care issues. I have the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, who are here to talk about women's voices in government and in their communities. That's 120 women from across British Columbia. I would ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

M. Polak: This morning along with my colleagues the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Surrey–White Rock, I had the privilege of meeting with members from the Hamed Nastoh Anti-Bullying Coalition. It's my good fortune to have four of them as constituents in my riding.

I'd like to introduce them to the House today: Mr. Todd Hauptman, who is a youth advocate; Marilyn Lawrie, director of Teen Titans; Judi Vankevich, also known as "the Manners Lady," director of the Canadian Project for Manners and Civility; and her daughter Lexi Vankevich, a grade eight student from Langley Fundamental Middle School and president of the Manners Club Kids. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great honour to introduce some of the wonderful women that we have met this morning from the Burnaby area, those who live there or work there. They are Joey Warnock, Tamara Coombes, Marge Owen, Marie Stewart, Elizabeth Tucker, Anna Lopez, Shannon Field and Karen Dickson. Please join me to welcome them.

L. Mayencourt: In addition to the guests that the member for Langley has mentioned today, we also have the mother of Hamed Nastoh. Nasima Nastoh has been a tireless advocate for anti-bullying campaigns in schools across British Columbia. She has spent the last six years dedicating her life to it. I hope the House will make her feel welcome.

I'd also like to introduce Debra Chisholm. Debra Chisholm is an education advocate who has done an awful lot of work around issues of bullying, harassment and intimidation as well. They're here to support the Safe Schools Act, and I would ask that the House please make them feel very, very welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the House is Heather Lee. Heather is a longtime activist in Maple Ridge and a stalwart member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Will the House please join me in making her welcome.

D. Routley: With us in the House are a few people. I'd like to make a couple of introductions. First, Catherine Dale. The B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres' Debra Critchley, Denise Derrell and Michelle Dodds. Also with us from the Lu'ma

Native Housing Society are Linda Lavalee and Marcel Swain, and from the

aboriginal homelessness steering committee, Patrick Stewart. Will the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade five students visiting from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are teachers Mr. Rick Bath and Mrs. Nancy Bakken as well as many parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany the students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize a couple of women from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. — their spokesperson, Sharon Gregson, who has been a longtime advocate for child care; and Susan Harney and her granddaughter Michaela. It's really great to see them here in the House.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend, Carol Bunch. She's a great advocate and a community activist. Please help me make her feel very welcome here today.

[1410]

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make one of my constituents very welcome. Lesley Gibson runs the

[ Page 4280 ]

Campbell River Women's Centre and listens to women and works with women in Campbell River and around the area. She is here with the women's centre lobby today. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

H. Bains: In the House today are a number of sisters from the Steelworkers — a good union I had the opportunity to meet with today — and other sisters from Machinists. My good friend Angie Shera is leading the troops in lobbying for a very good cause. Another woman in there, a good friend of mine, is Jessie Uppal — the very reason I'm in this House today. She was my campaign manager. Will the House please welcome them.

Tributes

WAYNE STRELIOFF

R. Fleming: Today we say thank you and goodbye to a face that is very familiar to members of the assembly. Mr. Wayne Strelioff, Auditor General for British Columbia for the past six years, is serving the last day of his term.

Mr. Strelioff has served this House and our province with dedication and a strong commitment to public sector accountability. As he moves on to other endeavours, I would like to ask all members of the House to thank Mr. Strelioff for his commendable service as B.C.'s Auditor General and offer him our best wishes for the future.

J. Yap: As my colleague from Victoria-Hillside mentioned, today is the last day for the Auditor General, Mr. Wayne Strelioff. I, too, would like to say, on behalf of government members, that it has been a pleasure to have worked with him.

As we all know — members of the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Government Services Committee — Mr. Strelioff has been a strong advocate for continuous improvement in government accountability. On behalf of all of us, I want to wish Mr. Strelioff all the best and every success in the future.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: In the House today joining us is Vicki Dobbyn with the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society. I would just ask that the House make her feel welcome.

C. Evans: Somewhere in the galleries up above us is a young woman, lately from Nelson, Michelle Mungall. At 23 years old, Michelle Mungall announced that she was going to run for city councillor in the city of Nelson. I was naively not of the belief that a 23-year-old person would do well in an election. She came second from the top of the polls after canvassing everybody in the town, served three great years as a city councillor and is now in Victoria to get a master's degree in political science. I want members to make her welcome upstairs. The next time we welcome her, I hope she's walking through the door to get sworn in as an MLA in this chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

S. Hammell: Betty Stevens, a member of UFCW and the heart behind the annual UFCW International Women's Day event — which I attended many of — is here in the House. She is a wonderful woman, very caring, and I'm very proud to say I'm a friend of hers. Would the House please make her welcome.

[1415]

L. Mayencourt: I have three other guests in the gallery today, and I would like the House to please make them feel welcome. Leo Ferry is the father of Zoe Ferry, who is also here with him. Leo has been involved in our parent advisory committees, first at Roberts Annex and later at Lord Roberts Elementary. They're joined by Sarada Bhagavatula. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

D. Routley: I rise once again, because I notice another constituent in our gallery. Mary Dolan is the coordinator of Growing Together Child and Parent Society in Duncan. She's a tireless advocate for child care — lives and breathes the issue — and proves it every day on the ground.

S. Simpson: I just want to add my voice in welcoming Sharon Gregson here. She is a leader in the child care movement and certainly has been a good friend to me and has always been a source of great advice around issues related to children for the benefit and welfare of children. I would note that Sharon is also a Vancouver school trustee in the city of Vancouver. I would encourage people to make her welcome.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure everybody was introduced, but if you weren't, welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

R. Chouhan presented a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006.

R. Chouhan: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Chouhan: I'm pleased to introduce the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006. In 2002, among

[ Page 4281 ]

various other budget and system cuts, this government passed legislation abolishing our Human Rights Commission. The commission had performed various functions, including human rights research, education, monitoring, investigation and dispute resolution. The results have been dramatic.

British Columbia currently stands as the only province in Canada without a commission. Our human rights system does not accord with international norms and principles, and it flouts our international legal obligations. Human rights education, research and monitoring are no longer carried out effectively in this province and are clearly not priorities for the current government.

Victims of human rights abuses are isolated and powerless without the assistance of the commission, and matters of systemic discrimination and harassment are not being addressed. The recent allegations of systemic discrimination and harassment in the Richmond fire service highlight these unacceptable deficiencies in our current human rights system.

This bill will restore the B.C. Human Rights Commission. The new and improved commission will rebuild a human rights culture in this province through research, education and outreach. It will revive the public purpose of our human rights legislation by carrying out public interest, investigation and litigation. It will respond to the needs and concerns of British Columbians by providing information and assistance regarding human rights disputes.

Our human rights will not protect themselves. Our commitment to diversity and human dignity must be nourished to be fulfilled. Equality and freedom from discrimination cannot be achieved without active public participation. British Columbia needs a human rights commission.

I therefore move that this bill, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) MENTAL ILLNESS

C. Wyse: May 1 to 7 has been declared Mental Health Week. Untreated mental illness extracts a heavy toll on both the individual and the family around that person. Government has the responsibility to provide the support to both the individual and the family. The family often serves not only as the primary caregiver but as the only caregiver. Without that support, the mentally ill frequently fail to live a normal life. Without that support, both society and the mentally ill suffer an unnecessary loss.

[1420]

Besides the personal price paid by the mentally ill, besides the need for expanded support for the mentally ill, there is an aspect of mental illness that is often overlooked — the effect mental illness has on business. Stress, depression and other mental illness have the following consequences for business in Canada. Some 35 million work days are lost each year due to mental health conditions. Up to 40 percent of disability insurance claims are attributed to mental health issues. In any given year, 20 percent to 25 percent of Canadian employees suffer from some sort of mental illness. Annual productivity loss resulting from mental health problems is estimated at $35 billion.

To be successful in today's economy, business needs to raise awareness of mental illness, reduce the causes of mental illness in the workplace and deal better with mental illness in the workplace. It is equally important that the effect of mental illness upon both the individual and society be recognized and that the effects of these illnesses be reduced. It affects both genders, all families and every nationality.

As mental illness ignores political party lines, I call upon this Legislature to use our collective influence to reduce the stigma attached to mental illness and to jointly seek methods to improve the lot of the mentally ill. To do any less is our failure.

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

J. Yap: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, recently celebrated its 35th anniversary. CFIB prides itself on being an independent, non-partisan big voice for small business in Canada. With over 100,000 members nationwide ranging from small to medium-sized business in all sectors, CFIB helps businesses to prosper by lobbying for them at the local, provincial and federal levels of government.

CFIB examines confidence in the Canadian business sector on a quarterly basis, and the most recent findings show that B.C. is leading the way. Ted Mallett, the federation's chief economist, says that business in B.C., along with Alberta, continues to be the most optimistic in the country.

Confidence in B.C.'s business sector is directly related to the policies of this government, and CFIB chose the occasion of their 35th anniversary to recognize this great achievement. On April 18, with members from both sides of this House present, CFIB president Catherine Swift presented to the Premier, on behalf of the province of B.C., their first-ever award of policy excellence in recognition of our government's achievements in improving regulatory accountability.

B.C. is the first province in Canada to measure and report the regulatory burden by ministry, showing a commitment to promoting regulatory accountability. CFIB recognizes this accountability as critical to fostering the ongoing prosperity of the small and medium-sized business community in B.C.

[ Page 4282 ]

The policies of this government promote confidence in the business sector of the province and support our great goal to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. We can and should be proud that B.C. is again leading the way in the country, and it's great this leadership is recognized by an organization as distinguished as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

HOMELESSNESS IN B.C.

D. Routley: Apologies to the members because this is adapted to a new topic. Since I came to this House, I've been astonished by many things, but particularly in my critic role in housing and homelessness, I've been astonished by what I've seen on the sidewalks, in the doorways and in the shelters of this province.

It is true we have a burgeoning economy. We have housing starts that are helping support employment, and we have raw materials that are in demand. But we also have thousands upon thousands of people being left out of that equation. We have tens of thousands of British Columbians living below the poverty line. We have thousands upon thousands of British Columbians living on the streets. We see increases every year that double that number.

We see aboriginal representation in that number grossly disproportionate to their representation in our provincial population — 3 percent of our population in the province and yet over 30-percent representation in the homeless counts in our urban centres. This, I think every member in this House would agree, is unacceptable.

[1425]

Against the widening gap between those who have and have not, a group called Lu'ma struggles with the challenge of urban aboriginal homelessness. They struggle to support the homeless. They support over 800 transitional housing units for aboriginal peoples. They recognize that there is no culturally sensitive or appropriate shelter for aboriginal people in this province, and they're fighting to change that.

I am proud to know them and work alongside them to address the issues of those who don't have, because nobody on this side of the House is going to deny that there are a lot of houses being built in B.C. with the low interest rates. No one here is going to deny that there are a lot of people working in mines, but I don't think anyone with a conscience could deny that there are tens of thousands of British Columbians left out.

B.C. RAIL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP

J. Rustad: When our government committed to creating the B.C. Rail investment partnership, we did so with the goal of reinvigorating B.C.'s rail industry and creating jobs and economic opportunities for the people of the central interior of B.C. Some of the benefits of this initiative are obvious. Some $500 million in taxpayer debt was retired. Funding was committed to establish the Northern Development Initiative Trust and towards improving the Port of Prince Rupert and the Prince George Airport. A new wheel shop in Prince George and a new district rail office, and the addition of 600 more railcars.

Now, almost three years later, there are still more opportunities being created as a result of this investment. The spark from this partnership has seen the Port of Prince Rupert already engineering phase two of expansion. This will see a huge increase in the rail traffic and container shipments, generating many new jobs in the rail industry, which have already surpassed employment levels of the old BCR operation.

In addition, the potential growth of the Prince George Airport is phenomenal. Once again, this initiative was a direct benefit from the CN-BCR partnership.

As a major rail intersection, Prince George is poised to become an important link in the development of Prince Rupert as part of our Asia-Pacific gateway strategy. It's an ideal location for an inland port facility, which would create hundreds of new direct jobs and thousands of spinoff jobs across the central interior.

The B.C. Rail investment partnership was a catalyst for this new spirit of optimism and growth being felt across northern B.C. Without the revitalized rail industry and the investment the partnership created, we would not be so well-positioned to seize these opportunities. There were naysayers afraid of change who wanted to keep the status quo, but the bold vision of our government is paying dividends for the people of northern B.C. now and for the future.

KARST CAVES

S. Fraser: In my constituency of Alberni-Qualicum there is great concern about the protection of our water supplies for drinking water, for the environment and for fisheries values. I've attended a number of events and rallies around that protection, and I've been learning things that I didn't know before.

I have met up with a group that has been involved in some of these community events. They are the Central Island Caving Club. On Saturday I had the opportunity to have an adventure, if you would, and enter a cave that has not been entered before by very many people — a new system above Sproat Lake. I and a number of other people had an opportunity to get a tour of this new cave system. They found new bugs — scientists are still trying to figure out if they're unique in the world — and very rare fossils.

But the implications of caves are a lot bigger. Karst topography is sensitive limestone areas that have seams where water will dissolve and form cave systems, and actually provide groundwater in areas where you would least expect it, often travelling great distances — miles, and in some places of the world, hundreds of miles.

We as legislators are often ignorant of that sort of system when it comes to making land use decisions. I'm raising this issue in the hopes of educating all of us, which I have just been, on how important karst systems are and how mindful we must be in protecting them when we're dealing with land use decisions that

[ Page 4283 ]

involve the surface. We are often unaware of what is happening below that surface.

[1430]

The vulnerability of these karst systems is also very important, and we do not understand them at all. We must make sure that we are very mindful of this for the future.

FUTURE OF STEELHEAD STOCKS

R. Sultan: Oncorhynchus mykiss is the provocative Latin name for steelhead fish, a strong and wild provincial icon. This weekend MLAs gathered with biologists and officials to form the steelhead futures caucus. Fuelled by wine and good intentions, we filled an evening with fishing stories from our youth and schemes for habitat restoration.

Steelhead multiply in the fast and cold rivers of our north, but in the south their future is threatened by temperature change in the ocean and stream destruction ashore. Unlike salmon, steelhead commute many times to the sea, grow to great size and spawn wherever they find clean gravel in fast rivers from the Capilano to the Coquihalla.

My friend and steelhead expert Al Lill has said that wild stocks cannot recover unless freshwater productivity is increased to compensate for reduction in marine survival. This involves repairing streams from the ravages of logging done as practised in the bad old days, nutrient enrichment and spawning bed development — not cheap.

This week the Premier and our Environment Minister tripled this government's investment in the living rivers trust fund, totalling $21 million for protecting and preserving rivers, watersheds and fish habitat for future generations.

To learn where this money goes, biologist Craig Wightman will lead our group on a snorkel survey down some fast river this summer — pure ecstasy. Roderick Haig-Brown once wrote: "It is something more than a sport. It is an intimate exploration of a part of the world hidden from the eyes and minds of ordinary people. It is a way of thinking and doing, a way of reviving the mind and body, that men have been following with growing intensity for hundreds of years."

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL

C. James: Last week the Minister of Health accused doctors of being alarmist when they said there was a crisis in ERs. By the weekend, as we all know, the ER crisis had become a PR crisis for the Liberals.

British Columbians don't care about the Liberals' PR crisis. They, in fact, care about the bed crisis. Doctors and health care professionals have been raising these concerns for years. All they got on the weekend was a band-aid fix.

My question is to the Minister of Health. How long will patients have to wait before the B.C. Liberals wake up to the crisis that they created in our emergency rooms?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the record is clear, I have never suggested that doctors are alarmist in this province. I did clarify the record with respect to a particular aspect of some of the issues we've been discussing, but I've never made that suggestion.

In fact, I had an excellent meeting yesterday with the B.C. Medical Association and with the emergency services committee of the B.C. Medical Association, which is comprised of several emergency department doctors. They are committed to working with our government. They are committed to working with nurses and the B.C. Nurses Union. They're committed to working with the paramedics across this province. They're committed to working with the health care unions. Everyone has stepped up to the plate and said they want to be a part of the solution, with the exception of the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: As one of the doctors said yesterday, the first step in fixing the problem is acknowledging that there is a problem. We continue to see the minister in this government completely ignoring the obvious problem. They cut too many beds and did not keep their promise to build the 5,000 long-term care beds.

[1435]

We heard this Health Minister actually challenge health workers to think outside the box. Well, I'd like to ask the minister to think outside his message box and actually acknowledge the problem — to admit that it was a mistake to close one in five acute care beds, actually admit that it was a mistake to shut down long-term care beds across this province, and actually admit that it was a mistake to download the pressures to the ERs.

To the Health Minister: when will you fix the real problem and replace the beds that you cut?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Leader of the Opposition, as is fairly typical of her and a number of her colleagues, actually confuses the record of this government with the record of her own government back between 1991 and 2001. I know they don't like to hear this, but I think it's important we note that the number of acute care beds in this province was reduced from over 11,000 in 1993 down to 8,000 in 2001. That's a 23-percent reduction in the number of acute care beds in this province. We have cut nowhere near that number of acute care beds.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I think that was actually a record, Mr. Speaker. It took a whole four minutes before the minis-

[ Page 4284 ]

ter blamed us for the problem instead of acknowledging their problem.

While the Health Minister is busy trying to fix the problems that he created in the hospitals, yesterday we learned that Mount Saint Joseph Hospital in Vancouver is going to lose 23 percent of their ER doctors at the end of the month. Doctors say that this will mean unsafe and unworkable conditions. In fact, one doctor actually said that she may leave the province rather than continue working here under the Liberal government. This is what happens when you care more about the headlines than you do about patient care.

My question to the Health Minister: why should anyone trust anything this minister has to say about health care, when he's been caught cutting ER doctors in one of the few hospitals that actually hasn't been in the headlines in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's most unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition continues to mislead the public around the facts in these matters. I think it's very important to note, when we look at Mount Saint Joseph in particular, that this is an important and valuable facility for Providence Health, for Vancouver Coastal and for the province. It's important to note that we've recognized that.

Back in the fiscal year 2003-2004, the budget for physician services was $686,000. Today in the current-year budget it is $1.075 million. That is for Mount Saint Joseph only. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. That is not the case.

I want her to know, as well, that all of the health authorities, in the current year's budget, received a lift of 4.2 percent in operational dollars — that's $280 million — for those health authorities to provide even better care to all British Columbians.

D. Cubberley: The minister likes to lecture us about bed cuts in the '90s and blame the current emergency room crisis on things that happened in the '90s. He is very, very fresh in his knowledge of those facts.

Let me remind him of his era in government. In their first term of office, this B.C. Liberal government shut down five hospitals. They closed 1,300 acute care beds, they closed emergency departments, and they shut down 54 long-term care facilities.

[1440]

What I would really like the minister to do is tell us why that has no relationship to the current crisis and overcrowding of the hospital emergency rooms in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: What doesn't make me feel better is knowing that during the years 1996 to 2001, when I was an opposition MLA for Shuswap, two of the three hospitals in my constituency were closed by that former NDP government. So they can get all sanctimonious as they like. The fact of the matter is that this government is making appropriate investments to move us forward. Unlike that government, which added 1,400 residential care beds throughout their entire ten years, we are already now incrementally at 1,500 additional beds.

Beyond that, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in remediating and upgrading residential care and assisted-living beds in this province, units in this province. Now 4,200 of those units have been completed in addition to the 1,500 incremental new beds. That investment, which was long overdue, will have a profound impact on the better operation of our hospitals and our emergency rooms.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: So you cut one in five beds in the acute care system in the province, and that had no impact on the current emergency room crisis.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

D. Cubberley: In 2003 and 2004 this government was warned time and again about bed shortages and the impact on hospital emergency rooms — by doctors. Ignoring those warnings, you cut even deeper. We're all waiting for the government to acknowledge and own up to the fact that there just aren't enough beds in the acute care sector in our hospitals to handle the patients arriving at the emergency room door.

It should be obvious we're not going to make any progress in fixing this problem by taking resources away from the emergency rooms that work and putting band-aids on the emergency rooms that don't. Will the minister agree to back off on the plan to downsize the emergency room at Mount Saint Joseph?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, let's get this discussion right. We recognize that acute care beds have been reduced around the world — nationally, internationally, provincially. The members opposite say: "Well, I guess the over 3,000 acute care beds that we closed during our tenure in office…. Apparently that was a good thing, but then it became a very bad thing when the other government came in, in 2001."

The fact of the matter is that acute care bed reductions stem to more out-patient surgeries being done today — far more than ever before. Cataract surgery that would take several days of hospital stay a decade ago is now done as an out-patient surgery in our hospitals. We have seen some acute care bed closures. It's a small fraction of what they closed during the 1990s.

J. Kwan: Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, a small hospital, was rated as having some of the best ER response rates in this province in terms of hospitals in the lower mainland. But because of that, they're being penalized. They're seeing a reduction in ER physicians in that hospital. That's what's happened with this government, and you know what? We've seen that movie played out before. This government shut down the 24-hour ER

[ Page 4285 ]

emergency services at UBC, and VGH took a hit and had more patients going to their emergency rooms.

By reducing Mount Saint Joseph's capacity, this government is putting more pressure in other hospitals. Can the minister explain to this House how it is that a reduction of services at Mount Saint Joseph Hospital would actually help the region's bed shortages and overcrowded ERs?

[1445]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member's question shows a remarkable disrespect to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and in particular to Providence Health Care, which has provided exceptional services to the citizens they serve for over 100 years now. The fact of the matter is that Providence Health Care and Vancouver Coastal are always looking at patient patterns within their area.

As I noted, the physician services budget for Mount Saint Joseph has moved from $686,000 in 2003-2004 to $1.075 million today. Now, we know that there are always challenges in the emergency departments, and I think that, quite rightly, Providence Health Care and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have to look at the pressures. They have to look at the demand in different facilities and make appropriate decisions around that $1.075 million. But believe me, each and every day Providence Health Care and Vancouver Coastal health care get up and work hard to try to provide the best service to the citizens they serve.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What is clear is this minister's showing of his disrespect to patients and doctors in British Columbia. The challenge for our health care system is this minister's inability to acknowledge that they have failed to promise to commit and to provide for the 5,000 long-term care beds this government was going to ensure were in place for B.C. That is the challenge in our health care system.

Moreover, this minister to date refused to acknowledge the problems we have in our system. We have Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, which is actually operating well in its ER services. And what does this minister do? He decides that they must cut their ER services. So I want to ask the minister this because….

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, there has been no cut here. We have seen the budget number move from $686,000 to $1.075 million, a 56-percent increase in the budget for physician services at Mount Saint Joseph.

The member seems to nurse the misapprehension that I set the staffing levels in emergency rooms at hospitals around the province. I do not. I look forward to the 100 years-plus of exceptional experience that has been provided by the Providence Health Care organization, by Vancouver Coastal Health. I think they do an exceptional job of managing their resources. They are moving very thoughtfully towards providing the best of patient care to the people they serve in Vancouver Coastal and in the Providence service area.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, it's this minister who sets the budget for the health authorities. It's this minister who gives the health authorities the budget that they need to provide the services. Right now, those services are being challenged. Dr. Hugley at Mount Saint Joseph said she can't work in a place where she can't guarantee patient safety and is going to the United States as a result. Is she fearmongering, minister?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: We do set the budget for the heath authorities. I'm glad we see that recognition from the hon. member, as a former Health Minister. We do set the budget.

The budget we've set sees a 4.2-percent increase, an increase of $280 million operationally for the health authorities. That budget sees a lift for emergency room doctors across this province, from $22 million back in '03-04 to $45 million today. That budget sees a 56-percent increase for physician services at Mount Saint Joseph, in comparison to a 21-percent increase in the amount of patients that make their way through Mount Saint Joseph Hospital.

We are in fact making very judicious investments. We have seen the budget for the Ministry of Health grow from $8.3 billion when we took office to $12 billion today. We have made a huge investment both on the operational side and on the capital side, and each and every day 120,000 people across this system work tirelessly to serve British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Every time this minister is challenged on the issues around physicians and health care professionals and the conditions they're working in and their ability to provide services, this minister resorts to throwing numbers about how much money is being put out there. It's not just about the money, hon. minister. The question has been raised by physicians….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh, once again we see a case of caucus interruptus on the other side.

[ Page 4286 ]

My question is again to the minister. Physicians are complaining about working conditions. A physician is saying that she has trouble and will not work in a place where she cannot guarantee patient safety. Again, to the minister: is she fearmongering?

Hon. G. Abbott: If anyone is fearmongering, it is the member opposite. That's entirely….

What I have seen over the past few weeks is nothing but goodwill from health care professionals across the province as they seek to work with us, to work with other health care professionals in providing even better service to British Columbians. Everyone is onside to provide that better service.

I'll just give you a couple of examples of that. This is from Melanie Leckovic, who is the regional co-chair of BCNU: "There's no quick fix, as we all know, but we're hoping that by having some input from staff that will actually work in the departments, they can implement some short-term changes that can make a difference for patients and staff."

From Dr. Haggard out at Royal Columbian: "I can tell you that I'm encouraged that the government is meeting about this and that they're trying to do something about this." Again, when I met with BCMA yesterday…. Everyone is onside to help build a better health system. Why don't these members of the opposition get onside as well?

FUNDING FOR KOOTENAY HOSPITALS

K. Conroy: I'd like to ask the Minister of Health about a shocking — actually, rather glaring — omission from his weekend announcement. I looked at the list of hospitals receiving extra funding, and I couldn't find a single one from the Kootenays — despite the heavy cuts we have sustained in our area.

Can the Minister of Health explain why his last-minute, short-term political fix ignores Kootenay hospitals, like Nelson and Trail, that are struggling with overcapacity every day?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm surprised that the member would characterize this initiative in this way. I think it's surprising because the B.C. Nurses Union — and the member herself can look in the newspaper this morning and see the comments from the president of the B.C. Nurses Union — the B.C. Medical Association, the paramedics from across this province and the hospital unions from across this province all want to sit down and work on better health care for British Columbians. Yet the member chooses to characterize that initiative in this way.

[1455]

I do want to, though, point out that what we learn from this initial process, this initial working with some of the largest and busiest emergency rooms in the province…. All of that will be translated, hopefully, not only to a constructive model that will be put in place in large hospitals, medium-sized hospitals and small hospitals across the province, but it will also help to build best practices around emergency rooms. Every British Columbian will benefit from the work that is being done.

APPOINTMENT OF BILL JONES

TO AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

B. Ralston: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Lands said he sees nothing with appointing Liberal party insiders to what he himself has described as an independent, arm's-length agency.

The Agricultural Land Commission Act clearly states that commissioners must "faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties…." At a public information meeting held by the Agricultural Land Commission in Richmond on April 25 — just last week — Bill Jones publicly expressed his opinion on the removal of the Garden City lands from the ALR. This was two days after — after — the Minister of Agriculture and Lands signed the order appointing Bill Jones to the commission.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is this. Does he actually believe these actions are a clear demonstration of impartiality?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is quite right. Last week I did appoint Bill Jones to the south coast panel of the Agricultural Land Commission. As the member points out, it has come to my attention that Mr. Jones made a representation to a meeting held by the Agricultural Land Commission. Those comments were made after I signed the order but prior to the time Mr. Jones was aware of his appointment.

Keeping in mind that the Agricultural Land Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and we need to ensure that it is being seen as an impartial body…. Mr. Jones certainly didn't do anything inappropriate, but at the same time we recognize the need to see panellists in a neutral manner. I have spoken with Mr. Jones today, and he and I have decided that his appointment should be rescinded.

APPOINTMENTS TO

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

M. Karagianis: Well, we appreciate the minister's recent revelation very much. Thank you very much for that.

Let me just remind the members that the Agricultural Land Commission's purpose is to preserve agricultural land. It seems to me that this government's approach to the ALR is to prioritize the needs of big developers, their friends, insiders and donors above those of ordinary British Columbians.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is still: why is the government appointing Liberal cronies to this supposedly independent, arm's-length ALC?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, the opposition is running out of questions. We canvassed this clearly yesterday.

[ Page 4287 ]

The supposition that more land is coming out of the agricultural land reserve today than at any other time during history is simply false. It is absolutely inaccurate. If you look at the history — and you can pick any five-year period of the Agricultural Land Commission since 1973 — what you will find is that land is coming out at historical lows through the agricultural land reserve.

We're proud of the work that's going on. I covered those numbers off for the opposition yesterday. If they'd like me to, I'd be happy to do that again today.

[1500]

WEED CONTROL ON E&N RAIL LINE

S. Fraser: I've got lots of questions.

The province is proceeding with the plans to introduce spraying poisonous substances to control the weeds along the E&N corridor, and that was despite full opposition from the public. At the recent Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities meeting, the community spoke again, and they said: "Absolutely not." They passed a resolution urging the Minister of Environment to finally listen to the public and stop the spray plan.

Now, to the Minister of Environment. This is everyone. This is every community, every municipality, every individual group and NGO. We already know first nations were not consulted. Will the minister now use his authority under

section 8 of the Integrated Pest Management Act and kill this permit?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is — and we've canvassed this in estimates and other places, I think, including here — that last fall E&N went out and engaged in public consultation. They heard back from the public. They dropped one of the more controversial components that they were thinking about using. They put forward a proposal to use some alternative treatment methods, including steam, I believe, to try and see if that works in containing the damage that weeds can do in attacking the integrity of the railbed.

My understanding is that as of today, there are no operational plans to go forward with spraying. I stand to be corrected. I haven't heard anything lately. But it's important to know that maintaining the integrity of the railbed is important. What happens when the railbed gets undermined by roots and other things is that derailments can happen. As we've seen in British Columbia, bad things happen when trains go off the tracks, and I'm sure the member opposite wouldn't want to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Yes, I do. The length of trains might have something to do with that too. The permit that was okayed by this ministry and Agriculture and Lands includes the use of Garlon 4. It includes the use of Roundup. This is through people's back yards.

Now, the people of Vancouver Island have spoken time and again. They have spoken officially this time. Again, to the minister. This is basic stuff. This is the people asking you to protect their drinking water, their environment and their back yard. Will the minister represent the people? I don't know who you're representing in this decision. Will he represent the people and use his authority under

section 8 and kill this permit?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member knows this, because we did discuss this last fall, and I think we talked about it earlier this year in the House. I'll repeat the message to the member. As a local representative, he could show some leadership and explain this to people that he talks to.

Anything that would be proposed to be used would have to be approved first by Health Canada. Health Canada has responsibility for making sure that any substance that's used is not dangerous to human health. So that's one of the first criteria. But beyond all of that, I'm not aware of any active plans that the E&N Railway currently has to use herbicides along their railbeds.

It's important to know that throughout British Columbia there are many rail lines, and throughout British Columbia maintenance is done to make sure that the railbeds are maintained and the integrity is protected. If the integrity of the railbed is undermined, bad things happen. Trains go off the tracks, and we'd rather have those trains stay on the tracks.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I'm actually just rising on a point of order. I know that during question period the Minister of Health made reference to the Leader of the Opposition being misleading. I know that he didn't intend to make that remark, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

Hon. G. Abbott: I withdraw.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Les: I have the pleasure this afternoon of tabling the 2005 annual report of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Reports from Committees

A. Horning: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

[1505]

Motion approved.

[ Page 4288 ]

Law Clerk:

April 26, 2006:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: one, that the

preamble to Bill Pr401 intituled Patricia Community Club (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; two, that the

preamble to Bill Pr402 intituled Christ For The Nations Bible College Act has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

A. Horning, Chairman.

A. Horning: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

A. Horning: I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401 and Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: For the information of members, I call Committee of Supply in this chamber on the continued estimates of the Ministry of Forests and, in

Section A, continued debate on the Ministry of Economic Development.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:10 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $473,203,000 (continued) .

B. Simpson: When we closed, the minister was talking about the fact that he wasn't comfortable with the Competition Council documents being the basis for a conversation about the bigger issues within the forest industry. I actually have much in agreement with the minister's comments about the industry and the state of the industry — in particular, the minister's comments around the fact that we need to begin to look at the non-corporate side of the industry.

In fact, I had a meeting both with the Council of Forest Industries and with Coast Forest Products in which I had to say to them quite bluntly that in all my years in living in a forestry town, working in the forest industry and working in community economic development, I've never seen as much growing animus about the control that corporations have over our forest industry and the concern that that's generating in all areas of the province. I concur with the minister's concerns around that.

The issue, then, is: how do we grow that? How do we grow the value-added? How do we grow the non-timber side and the non-corporate side of this industry? With that in mind, the minister said he wasn't willing to use the Competition Council process, but he admitted we needed the conversation.

Does the minister have some ideas, or is there anything in the service plan to begin to engage the people of the province, particularly in resource towns, in that broader conversation of: where are we going in British Columbia with respect to the forest industry, and what are some of the alternative visions that are out there for how we can maximize jobs and maximize return to the communities? Have any plans been made for that kind of an endeavour to be undertaken as soon as possible?

Hon. R. Coleman: This ministry is pretty engaged in communities, with its offices all around the province, its district managers, its regional managers. We have a value-added strategy that we've put together with regards to one area of the ministry. We sit down with the members from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

I meet with municipalities pretty regularly. Every time I go through a community, I usually sit down with the council. I've dealt with them on issues in and around everything from woodlots to community forests.

In addition to that, we have a number of trade organizations that the member is aware of. We have the Interior Truck Loggers Association. We have different organizations at the coast: Coast Forest Products Association, Council of Forest Industries. We also have, of course, organized labour, who are also partners in the forest industry and in communities.

There's a lot of dialogue that takes place. We work through that as we go. We also, obviously, have the ministry service plan, which is public, out there for people to comment on and have feedback into.

What I said before the break was that I didn't think this report should be the only report that built a foundation for having any discussion around it. I didn't discount the report — and I don't think the member meant that I did — as another tool for us to be able to enter into dialogue with regards to….

[1515]

I encourage people to think outside the box — whether it be the competition report or the value-added strategy or other things that we do in this ministry. There are some great minds out there with regard to what can happen in forestry, and we work pretty well together. We also have the professional organizations, like the professional foresters, the engineers, the

[ Page 4289 ]

geoscientists. All of those people, with my professional folks, do a pretty good dialogue on forestry on a pretty regular basis and identify the issues for us. We work through those issues, and frankly, a part of that process is even these debates. That whole dialogue about forestry is an ongoing thing and probably always will be as long as it's the main resource in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: The minister speaks about all of the groups involved — the industry groups, UBCM, MOFR offices, etc. — but that's the whole point: it's fractured. It's all over the place. Everybody has a piece of it, but nobody has the whole.

If you look at the Ministry of Forests and Range offices, they are dealing with significant legislative change. They're dealing with the FSPs that are coming in now and the transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act. You look at the industry groups; they're mired in softwood. They've got issues with respect to their own operations and their own membership. The ABCFP is having to deal with professional reliance and the implications on that.

Everybody has a piece. It's only the minister's office that has the responsibility for the whole. If the minister recalls when CIBC World Markets did the presentation to the Minister of Forests last fall…. Again, as I indicated in my opening remarks, they said that if the Canadian forest industry, as they were speaking to, was going to come out of this crisis that we're in, we needed completely different thinking to the level of what they called the Manhattan Project. Of course, we know what that ended in, and we don't want to be blowing anything up, but it was that kind of creative, out-of-the-box, holistic, comprehensive thinking.

What I'm asking from the minister's office is: is there the possibility for the minister to show leadership in this area, of what it will look like going forward — particularly since, as the minister indicated, we may have a softwood deal on the table that has implications for what it looks like in the future? Is there an opportunity for us to convene a forestry summit that is more holistic in its look — non-timber resources, biomass, value-added as well as the traditional industry that we have — and then ask the question: are we on the right path?

Right now we're on a path of cost control, of driving down the social rents, of driving down the return to the province. We've made an assumption in this province that we are to get less from our forests to the public, and yet we seem to have forgotten that they are public forests after all.

[1520]

My question to the minister is: is there an opportunity here for the minister to show that more comprehensive leadership and convene a forestry summit, with all of these groups coming together, so that we can have a fundamental, meaningful debate and conversation around what options there are for us for the next ten, 20 years for this industry for maximum realization of value from the land base, maximum employment and maximum return to communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I believe that the minister's office and the ministry itself are doing exactly as the member describes. I believe that we coordinate that information, that we drive an agenda, that we do it both by service plan and by funding things like A Wealth of Opportunities, which is a value-focused symposium for the Forest Products Associations of Canada — and the B.C. Forum on Forest Economics and Policy.

We've done symposiums twice now with first nations. We support initiatives in non- timber forest products where we actually support symposiums with regard to that. We have community forests and value-added things that are going on and feeding into us as well.

We have a project underway with regards to bioenergy. We are working with the Coast Forest Products Association and those associations with regards to the coast. We have invested over a couple million dollars with regards to forest research at UBC and also put money into Forintek to look for other products and uses of B.C. products, and all that gets coordinated within the ministry by the deputy minister and the ADM through to the minister.

I think that the suggestion of the symposium by the member may be something that may have some value, I think, as we go through the next number of months. As we finish down the softwood lumber agreement, I would think, and then, maybe as we move into the fall, there may be some value. We certainly are looking at some additional things with some of the other issues in the forest sector this fall.

There's no one thing that you can do that actually is the answer to the member's question. As a matter of fact, we're also participating in a symposium in Calgary, Alberta, with regards to mountain pine beetle to educate the people in Alberta with our experts and people — offered up our scientists — with regard to how it is affecting the Rockies, etc.

I think there are a lot of things that we do that we do and coordinate. I don't think it's uncoordinated. I think there's actually a pretty good working relationship with the various groups out there in the field. My experience has been that in the offices that I've visited, both at the district and the regional office level, our people have a pretty good handle on what's going on with the land base. They also have a pretty good handle on what is possible out there and have some vision.

I think that if there's one thing we're gifted with in British Columbia, it's our very professional Forest Service. They see the big picture, work with all these organizations and make recommendations to the minister with regard to maybe putting on some symposiums and participating in those and on working with all the professional groups.

I think that a lot of the work that's been done in the last years — before I got here and in the last year, in particular, that I've seen since I became the minister — leads us down to a value-added strategy, which we said we would do. It's led us down to some other strategies, which we said we would do. I think they've

[ Page 4290 ]

got a pretty good, cohesive, coordinated operation and have a pretty good understanding of the field.

B. Simpson: I guess what I'm suggesting is that all of the pieces need to somehow be brought together. I hear that the minister thinks that those pieces are being coordinated. There's a difference between coordinating and….

Again, my background is in organizational effectiveness. It's called the whole-systems approach, where you bring the whole system into the room and you ask it the pertinent questions, instead of going around and asking the system's parts what needs to be done to fix it, because what you get is the perspective from those parts. You don't get the more holistic perspective that helps you to put together a more comprehensive, coordinated strategy.

It's a division of roles as to who hears what — because, as the opposition critic, I hear more from the people who are dissatisfied with what's happening or not happening. I recognize that my flavour of the industry is tainted, if you will, with where I spend most of my time, but the corollary is also true. As the minister, as the senior politician for the file, that filter is also strong in your government's agenda, the policies that you're driving forward, and so on. The filter there is that it needs to be working.

[1525]

Therefore, my recommendation is a whole-systems approach, where you bring all the parts into the room and you ask them. There are people at Royal Roads and other places who can do that very, very effectively, if the minister's so inclined. I think we've canvassed that point, so let me ask my next question to try and close off the Competition Council reports.

With respect to the Competition Council reports themselves, will there be an official, formal response to these reports? Will the ministry, rather than taking a whole bunch of tax on this, and as the minister has already indicated, a B.C. Timber Sales review possibly…? Because these are public reports, will there be somewhere where the public can get a public response from the ministry on what it intends to do and then a report card on what it has done over some sort of time frame?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member referred to me as a senior member of government. I'd rather not be a senior quite yet. If we could maybe think of a mature, longstanding, "been here a little bit longer than he should have been" member, perhaps. I don't know, but senior….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Seasoned is good. A seasoned veteran would be very good.

It is our intention to write back, and we will be open about that response to the Competition Council. I'll just caution the member that these are advisory reports. They're not anything that binds the ministry to do anything. Of course, we've said that we'll do the B.C. Timber Sales review that is in there, as we discussed yesterday, and some of those things. We will be advising of those things that we will be taking action on and those things that we would be taking under advisement in that response to the Competition Council.

I guess that in this case it probably goes to the Competition Council, who would then send it down to the sub-subcommittee.

B. Simpson: I understand that these are advisory reports, but they're in the public domain now, so I think that if the conversation continues in the public domain, it may accelerate the discussion.

With that, there's one last point in the Competition Council's report. The minister at the Council of Forest Industries was pre-emptive of this in some way in the comments around municipal taxes. As the minister is aware, because he saw it in the room, the "dining out" phrase got some backs up and caused a little bit of concern.

The Competition Council actually submitted a prebudget recommendation around municipal taxes to the Finance Minister, and I was able to get a copy of that. They released this portion in advance to the Finance Minister prior to the budget. They're very strong in their document around the issue of the social rent reduction, and in particular, the industrial tax rate being reduced. I can tell you, because we've got the regional municipality meetings going on all around the province, it is the buzz on the floor. It has created considerable consternation and concern.

What is the intent at this juncture of a response or action on that particular aspect of the Competition Council's report?

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: The remark got the result exactly as it was intended to get, and that was to have people think about how they did their industrial taxes and the services that they get as a result of those, how it could have an affect on long-term sustainability for industries that are particularly large industries in communities that will have an impact on whether they stay, given the international competition.

It wasn't something saying: "You've got to change how you do business." That portion of the report, of course, was also shared with the Ministry of Community Services, which will look at and work through UBCM on some of those questions and issues. The member may have noticed in the federal budget today they actually put in what looks to be some community adjustment money for labour market adjustments — that sort of stuff — for the forest sector, which comes from these discussions as well.

I think the representations that have been made in Ottawa by groups like the Coast Forest Products Association have made a number of people alive to a number of issues that affect us. I think it is, as much as anything, important that communities who have a base of

[ Page 4291 ]

industrial taxes — as an aging plant comes up for refit or investment or to change components and what have you, that could cost $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, even $500 million — keep in mind the base of the tax they're getting and how they would tax that industry in the future as they try and modernize and make those investments to be able to be a sustainable industry in the community.

I think there is a healthy discussion that has to take place in and around this in many communities. I know that in many communities across the province there are. I also know that the decisions will be made by corporations with regards to adding capital and where they put it with regards to their long-term business plans relative to these types of issues.

I think it's healthy that we actually say it. It's healthy that we engage in the conversation. I think it's healthy that the Minister of Community Services, through UBCM, will be having those discussions and will be talking to…. We've seen the difference already — not the difference in the comments — but we have seen in some communities in B.C. where…. For instance, we're going to be reopening the Port Alice mill on Friday. The tax regime in Port Alice that this will reopen on is virtually almost 100-percent different than what it was when it used to operate as far as its contribution to the tax base — because the community wanted the sustainability.

There have been other concessions made in communities like Prince Rupert, and we know that Sun Wave still hasn't been done, and who knows if they ever will get it done with the Chinese government? But those types of things are at play. I mean, the Competition Council put in their report. I know that I was probably the softer speaker that day with regards to that topic. I understand that former Premier of the province Dan Miller spoke at the meeting, and I understand he was a bit more provocative and somewhat more blunt than I was.

So as we go through this, I think it is a healthy discussion to start to do it. I don't think it hurts to have that discussion, because there are some major industrial complexes — particularly probably in the pulp and paper sector — that have to make some investment decisions over the next few years. Whether they make those investments in British Columbia or somewhere else, I think part of the competitive and investment side of that will be driven by whether they're going to have an incremental huge increase on the taxes they pay within the community by making the investment and that sort of thing.

So I think it's important. I think it's an important topic, I think it's an important discussion, and I look forward to actually having discussions with mayors and councillors at UBCM and those as I go through their communities in the ensuing months once we get out of this wonderful place that we're in.

B. Simpson: It certainly was a way to stimulate discussion, and the co-chair of the Competition Council did add to that flavour in the afternoon — talking about leaky lifeboats and everybody having to bail together. The issue here, of course, is that at the same time municipalities are being asked to look at giving up some of their industrial property tax rates, in the interior they're also, as the minister has already indicated, having to deal with substantive infrastructure loading as a result of the mountain pine beetle impact.

[1535]

They're looking at job losses as a result of the corporate concentration, the mill efficiencies that are being gained and the job losses around there and on the coast as a result of mill shutdowns. Again, it's all of a wrap.

In particular, in the Competition Council's report, and I referenced it this morning already, there's an irony that we shouldn't prop up non-viable assets. The Competition Council report explicitly targets pulp mills as needing this industrial property tax rate break in order to keep them in the communities.

One aspect of it is the role the province plays in industrial property taxes. There's an error, as I'm being briefed, in the Competition Council's report on how that industrial property tax rate is seen, because the school tax is in that rate. So with respect to reducing the industrial property tax rate, what portion of that industrial property tax is collected for provincial purposes?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I would suggest is that that's really not a question for this minister. There's a minister of revenue and provincial revenue and a Minister of Community Services who would deal with that on a different level than I am. That goes to things like B.C. Assessment Authority and that sort of stuff. Believe me, I don't have any expertise in that area.

I would recommend that the member might want to pose that in writing to those two ministers for input, because I think both of their estimates are complete. I know that the report has been shared with them. My understanding is that they would be having conversations in and around the topics in the competition report. So that would be my recommendation to the member.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point and will follow up. The issue here is it's part of the forestry discussion. I would hope — and what I'll ask for — that we would get clarity around whether or not the discussion is being put in the right context with the figures the way the Competition Council is putting them.

What I'm being told is that the province has actually rolled into the industrial property tax rate…. It is collecting about one-third, and two-thirds are going to the local government. There is a bit of an offset there that's not clear in the Competition Council's report, which the municipalities are being blamed for, if you will, when in actual fact the tax is just simply not positioned correctly by the Competition Council. So in the deliberations with the Competition Council, one of the things that I would hope for would be some clarity around that so we're having the right discussion about those social rents.

[ Page 4292 ]

Moving on then from the Competition Council's report, I'd like to spend some time looking at coastal forestry issues and to lead off with a question to the minister with respect to the impact of the softwood lumber deal, if indeed we close that deal off. We've had lots of conversation in the last two sessions about the state of the coastal forest industry. The reality is that the coastal forest industry was not as impacted by softwood as the interior bigger dimension lumber, bigger volume industries were.

What's the minister's sense as to what potential benefit signing off on this particular softwood deal, if in fact we do sign off on it, will have on the coast? What kinds of impacts does the minister expect to happen there with respect to all of the issues we've talked about: capital investment, mill closures — all of those things?

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of things, actually. First of all, for the first time in the history of softwood something happened in this deal that the coast had asked for a long time ago. That was to have a separate region for the coast versus the interior of B.C., like we have a separate province in Alberta or Ontario or Quebec. That was significant because in future discussions, then, as they look at exits as you come through the negotiations of an agreement, the coast can actually be looked at differently. They really wanted that, frankly.

In addition to that, one-third of the wood from the U.S. is U.S.-bound. If you talked to the coastal operators back in the days of the last softwood agreement or, as we called it, a sort of countervailing…. I forget how they couched the deal. They actually did a quota disproportionately — because the coast was very much shipping to Japan — that left them out and, basically, didn't recognize them and left them out of the opportunity in the marketplace. It really virtually froze the U.S. access to market by the coast.

The coast has had some increased shipments into the U.S. over the last few years, which helps them with their market-share decision, as they go forward. They will select either "a" or "b." In addition to that, the high-value cap, because of the value of some of the products coming off the coast, was very important and nuanced to this particular deal for the coast as well.

In my discussions with the coast organizations and with industry on the coast with regards to softwood, there are a lot bigger discussions they have to deal with as we go forward. One of them in particular is…. The labour contract on the coast comes up in 2007. There's certainly an issue around whether there's the ability to move some folks to early retirement by having some transition funding through EI or through the relationship with the federal government. It appears…. Of course, you have to see what it meant today in Ottawa, but certainly, there seems to be some recognition of that.

If that's the case, then some of those dollars are targeted for that. That will help with some of the restructuring stuff on the coast.

The other stuff that the coast faces, as the member knows, is that we're going to see what EBM does under the new land use plan on the central coast. We have the issues with the negotiations that are ongoing with the Haida First Nation and the people in the Charlottes. It has way more difficulties than just access to a market. This may give it some of the stability going forward, but I think those other recognitions are equally as important as the actual structure of the deal for them.

When we came down to the discussions at the end, these companies were saying: "Are we interested or not?" It was really from the coast guys saying: "Okay. This is a piece for us, but this a piece of a really big puzzle." So I've outlined those types of things to the member — other things that are very much near and dear to the hearts of the coast industry to look at.

There are some others as well. I have undertaken with them that we will certainly convene the group on the coast industry companies and engage in a dialogue as to what the coast strategy will be going forward once we know all of the nuances of this.

B. Simpson: I noted that in the document that I was given for the April 27 terms of the deal. With respect to that, the minister's mentioned a group, now, the coast recovery group. Does that group exist already?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the group does exist. The group is doing work now. The deputy minister is actually part of that group, as are a number of companies and organizations on the coast.

B. Simpson: How does the coast recovery group fit in with the minister's plan? Is that the group, then, that would lead that coastal strategizing process?

Hon. R. Coleman: The group gives advice in to the minister and in to the deputy minister. Some of the things we've already talked about, like X, Y and U and those issues, were recommendations that came out of the coast recovery group.

We were asked to reinvigorate this group back in January. We agreed to do that. We felt that they needed to play a sort of clearinghouse. They are reviewing everything similar to what we've discussed already — like the pulp report, like the solid wood report, other recommendations that come from other groups and input — so that they can look at the coast holistically and come in with some recommendations moving forward.

B. Simpson: Who's on this group then? Is there a list that's available? Are their proceedings public? Who sits on this coast recovery group?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a terms of reference that includes the membership. We'll get a copy for the member. We don't have it here.

B. Simpson: Are communities represented on this group?

[ Page 4293 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Not at this stage, but it's not unanticipated that that may expand as we move forward with the initial tranche of work. We'll work through that as we go forward with discussions as I, as minister, get a chance to spend time on the coast with some of the local communities in the near future — when we get out of this place.

B. Simpson: Are workers currently on the coast recovery group?

Hon. R. Coleman: At this stage just the truck loggers are, but that's the only group that would be, other than companies and advisory groups like, you know, trade groups and stuff like that. It is not unanticipated that this group will expand as they go through their first initial phase of work, and we'll be looking at that as we go through over the next few months.

B. Simpson: I don't believe that even the truck loggers themselves would represent themselves as a workers group. They see themselves as the smaller companies on the coast, on the logging operations side, and that's who they represent.

[1550]

The coast recovery group, as it's currently structured, does not have communities on it and does not have workers on it. I'm hearing the minister say that it has the potential to expand. I would certainly hope that it would expand.

I just want, for clarification…. Will the coast recovery group then be the group that will morph into this coast strategy group, based on the implications of softwood for the coast, the Competition Council's report for the coast? The minister referenced a group coming together to address these issues. Will this be the group that will morph into that, or will another group be formed to address what the minister indicated he saw as an outcome of having the softwood agreement?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the beginning. I don't not have a vision of it expanding. I should tell the member, though, that no community or community groups like regional districts or labour groups have asked to be on it yet. They haven't made a request of us yet, but that's not surprising. It's fairly early in the process. But what I see this as…. You could probably call it the nucleus of the start of the discussion. It will expand out from there to communities and to labour. It will then get to where we have something that would come back as some input to the minister.

What I said at the beginning of this is that I wanted to know what was short term — what had to be done now. I wanted it to be a fairly tight situation as far as getting feedback not just from this group but also from the ministry. There are some short-term things you can do, some mid-term things you can do and some long-term things you can do. As the member knows, the mid-term and long-term are the toughest. Somebody will always tell you: "If you give me free wood and no costs, I can make magic with your money." So it's the structural side and all of those things that have to be taken into account as I go forward.

I don't want the member to think for a second that the people who won't be driving the agenda on the land base — at the end of the day, given the advice given — will be anybody but the ministry and government. Things that have to be decided or changes, made have to be made in conjunction with cabinet or caucus — caucuses but more cabinet — or committees, and in some cases are made within the ministry. The ministry has good people in the field that can process these types of discussions and recommendations and move them forward.

We've already seen some decent work from these folks. I expect more. I'm not holding out that I wouldn't.… I'm not going to say I wouldn't add anybody to it, because I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think you have to start somewhere, and then you can grow from there with regards to this. I think our objective would be to do just that.

B. Simpson: I have to say the minister's comment, "If you give me free wood and no costs, I can make money," sounds like the Competition Council's report. I'm not sure how much money we paid to get that report, but that sums it up quite well in my estimation.

It's an interesting comment, because we've just had a discussion about the fact that we understand clearly what the corporations would like to see happen. If I understand, basically, this coast recovery group is made up of corporate interests and ministry interests, which some would argue are also corporate interests in another form. In fact, the Competition Council report says that the ministry needs to be even more oriented towards business and the economic drivers in the forest sector.

Were people invited to sit on the coast recovery group by the minister or by the deputy minister or senior staff?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: Not invited as such. I think it was a coming together of the different organizations and industry. Frankly, in the first stage of this thing, I don't know that some of the groups the member may envision would want to be at the table, would want to be in this when we're talking about some fairly technical things with regards to things like log dumps, stumpages, calculations and stuff like that that are affecting how people operate on the land base from a corporate perspective, to see if we could sort of get some stability, initially, for them.

I don't disagree with the member on some of the comments he makes on the competition report side. That's why it's not driving the entire agenda with regards to discussions that will take place.

We envision that this will grow as we go past the first stage of the early changes that we feel will be necessary. It will grow out towards communities and other groups that will want to participate. We're happy

[ Page 4294 ]

to have that happen, actually, but in the initial stages it was really, "What can you do today in the short term?" and: "What is doable in the short term?"

You also have to make sure when you're doing these things that if somebody says, "Well, if you just did this with X fibre, this would be great," you have to look and see how much of that fibre is actually coming out at a certain price and how it affects the fiscal plan. Then you have to walk away with that idea and see if you can get it past your Treasury Board, or whatever the case may be, when you're doing certain things.

It's a pretty dynamic process at the moment, but it will grow. At the end of the day, I think, regionally on the coast, there will be input from people who actually are affected differently. You have the central coast, for instance, that has very little manufacturing. Their biggest thing is: "Can we get to a deal where you have a log dump to employ some people to log dump on the central coast?" You have the people in the Charlottes who would like to see some certainty around what's happening with the whole negotiations in and around that land base up there.

Then you have some folks on the central part of the Island who think they'd like to move to second growth and exit old growth and some folks who think, "If you exit old growth, we'd like to have some of the old growth," and: "What can we do with that on niche markets?"

There is a lot more work to be done. You know, it's pretty early stages. I think that, if anything, we recognize that the work needs to be started. We have some input now. We will expand it as we go through the next number of months on the coast to basically implement what we see coming out of softwood, what we see coming out of some of the other issues that are facing our industry on the coast. Hopefully, in a few years we get to the point where we actually see some capital investment coming back.

It's a big challenge, actually. As the member knows, if you've toured at all on the coast, there are some huge challenges there we need to address. One thing I've said to industry and to labour when I've met with them is that government can't fix this. Government can do some structural things to set a platform to do some business within, but in actual fact, the dollar, the markets, what products you're going to develop and what products you're going to develop in the future…. All of those things will have an impact on the success of any strategy we do.

It won't be, by itself, one thing or one group that will be able to find the long-term solutions here. It's going to be very much a team effort. We will welcome, as we grow this thing, to have other groups come in and be participants with regards to the future of the coast.

B. Simpson: I have been on the coast. I spent the second week of the break in Queen Charlottes, Haida Gwaii, and visited all of the communities there. I visited with Cascadia Forest Products and with Teal Jones and had community meetings. I've been up in Nanaimo last week at a protest that shut Front Street down. In Port Alberni we know that already there have been two times they've shut the main road down.

This Thursday there's going to be another major protest in that area. I'm hearing that we're going to see similar things in Port McNeill, Campbell River and so on. I would suggest that it's a sign of frustration that all we seem to be doing is asking the corporations what their thoughts are and not engaging communities and workers.

[1600]

What the minister suggests is "technical" has implications. Every one of those decisions has implications for how it looks for workers, for how it looks for communities, for what the implications are on the downstream impacts of those decisions.

I would suggest that the sooner the community voices and workers' voices are heard on this, the better. It may actually negate some of the angst out there that's driving people to the street. I can tell you. My experience now is that the coast is going to come to the street. That's the level of frustration.

At the Truck Loggers, one of the mayors who was on the panel…. I've never heard a mayor in a Truck Loggers talk about the fact that he feels so shut out of the process. The deputy minister was on that panel.

You know, in terms of "this is new," we can go back to the 1990s — in '97 and the Kobe earthquake. In '98 the Japanese housing market collapsed. Those are the structural underpinnings of what we're experiencing now. That was attempted to be fixed by very large groups that had socioeconomic impact analysis, all kinds of heated debates around LRMP tables and whatnot.

Now people feel that they're completely shut out of all of the decision-making that's going on. They don't have a voice, so they'll take to the street. I would hope that that thing is expanded sooner rather than later, if we want to stop a lot of grief on the coast, and that we have a constructive and more deliberate dialogue about what can be done.

On a technical point, though, a critical question on the coast is second-growth strategy. Will this coast recovery group be doing the work around the second-growth strategy, and what is the status of that strategy at present?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they're doing technical work on what is possible and how quickly and how fast and how it would be done.

B. Simpson: When might we see that work?

Hon. R. Coleman: These guys are brilliant. They….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it is a good thing.

I'm advised that we may have some work done earlier, but it will be completed by the end of the year.

B. Simpson: The minister also mentioned before, and I forgot to ask…. He has mentioned a couple of

[ Page 4295 ]

times that a value-added strategy is being developed. Who is developing that strategy? How is it being developed, and when might we see that?

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: We've been working on this for some time, but it's actually coming through in draft now pretty quick. We're working with B.C. Wood and Forintek on an implementation strategy. Our expectation is that it will all be ready to roll by the end of September.

B. Simpson: I just didn't want to lose that thought. I'll come back to value-added shortly.

With respect to the coast, then, one decision we're awaiting is a decision of the competition bureau in Ottawa on the Western Forest Products purchase of Cascadia. As far as I know, that decision is pending and imminent. If it has been made already, I'm not aware of it simply because I've had my head buried in estimates preparation. If it has been made already, then I stand to be corrected.

What I understand is that the competition bureau will rule that Western Forest Products can purchase Cascadia and will not be ruling on the proportion that it has of the land base, which my numbers indicate will be 44 percent of the allowable cut on the coast and self-sufficient in logs. Is the minister of the same understanding about the state of the competition bureau's decision and about Western Forest Products having ultimately 44 percent of the annual allowable cut when it finishes the purchase of Cascadia?

Hon. R. Coleman: You're in the ballpark. We think it's around 42 percent, but that depends on what happens through the other processes. The competition bureau is a federal organization, and I'm not prepared to comment on what they could or could not be thinking at this stage. I don't even know if they've reported out to the commissioner yet. It's a federal process. It's not in my jurisdiction and not in my purview to know, so that's something we'll just have to wait for to happen.

B. Simpson: Did the ministry make any representation in the competition bureau's process for making a decision with respect to Cascadia? In particular, did they make a presentation around the degree of control that Western Forest Products would have over the land base on the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: We did not make representation. We collaborated on data and information for them and provided them with information.

B. Simpson: Does the ministry have the right of representation at the competition bureau?

[1610]

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have any particular standing in the federal process. We're just one more organization they could ask for information from and collaborate with — which we did. We provided information to them, but we don't have any standing as a ministry or government. They are independent. I think they're quasi-judicial, actually, as a body. So they operate as they operate.

B. Simpson: I'm very familiar with the competition bureau because of purchases by the company I work for and, of course, in the interior with the Canfor purchase of Slocan and Tolko of Riverside and West Fraser of Wildwood. I know that there is an opportunity in the process for people to make representations as well.

Let me get to the heart of the matter. According to the forest revitalization strategy of 2003 — this is the Liberal government's own document:

…nearly all of the province's logging rights were awarded decades ago — about 75 percent of the harvest from provincial lands is allocated to major companies. This makes it difficult for new operators to get involved in the sector, no matter how innovative or efficient they may be. Without their ideas and fresh creativity, B.C. has not always been able to realize the fullest benefit from valuable public timber. Sometimes, for example, timber has continued to be manufactured into simple, lower-value products instead of into new, potentially more valuable ones.

This has resulted in many lost opportunities for a strong, diverse forest sector and related benefits for workers, communities and the public.

That is the Liberal government's own rhetoric on why they made the changes to the Forest Act that they did, why they introduced FRPA and why they engaged in the Forestry Revitalization Act and took back 20 percent. Now we have a situation on the coast the likes of which we've never seen before, with one company having 44 percent of the allowable annual cut, being self-sufficient in logs — so there is the major player on the coast that does not have to buy out of a log market — and a company that has indicated that they intend to close manufacturing facilities around the coast.

Given the intent of the Forestry Revitalization Act, is the minister at all nervous or concerned that because of changes to the Forest Act we have one company on the coast that has in their control 44 percent of the allowable annual cut, is self-sufficient in logs and takes that amount out of the log market and, in fact, I would argue, will be able to convert at will to whole-log exports by coming to this government for orders-in-council for oversupply?

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I was concerned. That's why we did a thorough review in the ministry. My officials did the work that was necessary to do to look at this thing. The competition bureau will do what the competition bureau does.

We have to look at it from a number of aspects. First of all, we have to look at the deal, I guess. We have to remember it's been a long time since anybody offered to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in our

[ Page 4296 ]

coast, and part of the deal also includes some significant investment on the coast. We are doing our due diligence, and the competition bureau will do their due diligence and make the decisions and move forward.

B. Simpson: Well, there is investment, and there's recycling dollars. In this deal, one could easily suggest that what we've got is recycling dollars because of the structure of the deal.

[1615]

I want to stay more on point here with respect to the intent of the revitalization strategy versus the outcome. In 2003 Weyerhaeuser, Interfor and TimberWest did a tour of the coast, saying: "We need all kinds of cost reductions in order to get $1.5 billion in investment in the coast." Weyerhaeuser no longer exists. TimberWest has told its shareholders that it is only interested now in jacking up the return to their investors.

K. Krueger: Weyerhaeuser no longer exists?

B. Simpson: On the coast.

The Chair: Member.

B. Simpson: Weyerhaeuser no longer exists on the coast. TimberWest has indicated that it's getting out of manufacturing and has its only remaining mill up for sale. TimberWest has also indicated to its shareholders that it is interested in land development and increasing the cut level on private lands. Interfor, as we know, is divesting itself of British Columbia holdings and purchasing down in the United States.

What we have got is the reverse of the intention of the revitalization strategy, and we've got a reverse of the promise of those three companies as they went around the coast. So now the coast is faced with a situation where the only player of significance in the game has 44 percent of the cut and has the ability to shut down mills that it figures are not cost-effective or efficient and further drive the return on employment down. They've announced that that's what they intend to do.

My question to the minister is: if Interfor, as a hypothetical situation, wanted to divest itself of its public holdings on the coast, is there anything to prevent Western Forest Products from purchasing those public holdings?

Hon. R. Coleman: The minister of the day would have to review whatever transaction was taking place to ensure not to unduly restrict competition of standing timber markets, log markets or chip markets on any deal.

Western announced a $12 million investment in Cowichan Bay and added another shift Monday, I believe it was. I don't know the last time somebody actually added a shift on the coast. We have a new player on the north Island which is a, I hope…. I wish them the most success when they do their grand opening. I actually will say that when I do their grand opening on Friday, because I think it's good to see a company that's prepared to put $80 million into something to invest.

We have to remind ourselves of the context that a lot of things have happened over the last number of years. I think the 2001 Pearse report made it pretty clear that we were going to see some loss of mills, on our coast in particular. There is no…. I'm not going to stand here as a minister and try and tell the member that everything's rosy. I think that there are some concerns going forward, but I do believe…. I think our second-growth study — which is in process, and it will go area by area and mixture by mixture — could lead us to aid through some new mills on the coast, because we will know the fibre supply with regards to that.

[1620]

We're just going to work through this. We can have the discussion around the criticisms as each piece comes along, but we're going to work through it, because I'm probably one of the world's biggest optimists, who actually tries to see the glass half-full all the time.

I think there are solutions. I don't think they're going to be easy. I've said that all along. I want to challenge people to think as we go through it. There may be some adjustments in commercial activities that take place. We'll deal with them as the law prescribes us to do, as will the competition bureau, and we will move through this.

I do believe there are glimmers at this point in time, in some areas of the coast, and certainly, some of the stability that's anticipated to come out of Thursday's agreement with the United States will help some of that. But they're glimmers, and we'd like it to be a pretty bright light by the time we're through here. If the member recalls the coast industry in Oregon and Washington, its correction a number of years ago, how tough it was and how long it took, I would like to see that shortened in British Columbia and be more successful than they were in their adjustments.

B. Simpson: My question was very explicit. If Western Forest Products wanted to purchase more public tenures, TFLs or renewable forest licences, does the minister have legal authority to prevent that from occurring?

Hon. R. Coleman: On anything, we have the power to issue a notification to proceed or to not, but let's stop that part of this discussion there. I am not going to speculate on what a company in the future may buy or may think they want to buy in the context of what's happening on the ground today. That could fetter a future minister's decision-making process.

Any time that a deal comes along within the commercial enterprise of forestry — let's deal with the commercial enterprise of forestry — it's a snapshot at the time that makes the decision about those things. It wouldn't be correct for me to enter into a speculative discussion with the member opposite about what could

[ Page 4297 ]

be or might happen somewhere in the future, because that would be unfair to future commercial enterprises.

B. Simpson: This government made substantive changes to the Forest Act — substantive changes with respect to what rights the minister had over tenure and tenure allocations. The minister previously had the ability to look at a tree farm licence that had a pertinence clause to it when the mill closed to see if the licensee should still continue to have that tree farm licence. The minister had the right of automatically taking 5 percent back in licensing transfers. We did not have the ability to partition licences for sale.

There have been substantive Forest Act changes. All I'm asking…. I'm not asking for the minister to do it hypothetically with respect to anything.

Let me ask the question differently. Does the minister, under the Forest Act today, have the right to prevent a private company from purchasing a forest licence, tree farm licence or long-term forest licence of some kind in this province? What is the nature of the minister's oversight under the Forest Act after the changes that were made by this Liberal government?

[1625]

Hon. R. Coleman: If somebody wants to purchase a forest licence, they have to get from the minister a notice to proceed, which he can give or not give. The minister's decision on notice to proceed is measured by whether the transaction would unduly restrict competition in standing timber, log markets or chip markets.

B. Simpson: That's the answer that I was looking for. In that case, then, Western Forest Products owning 44 percent of the allowable cut is being done under the minister's approval and belief that it does not restrict those factors that the minister has indicated. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff did some work and made some recommendations to me. The recommendation was that this deal did not unduly restrict competition in standing timber, log markets or chip markets.

B. Simpson: When Western Forest Products announced the purchase of Cascadia, they were explicit in their announcement that more mills would close. At that time, did the minister engage Western Forest Products in understanding what Western Forest Products' plans were for mill closures and which communities would be impacted, with a view towards working with the Minister of Community Services on transition strategies?

Hon. R. Coleman: They have no specific plans that I'm aware of at this time with regards to that. In working with the companies, as we do with all companies when possible closures come up, that's when we would engage with Community Services. We haven't had an indication from them of who, what, when and where — or even if. I think that the people on the Western side are fairly optimistic that things could be better in the future for the coastal forest sector, and I guess that's why the investment's being made.

B. Simpson: I'll move on to another topic. At the Truck Loggers Association, the minister stood up and made a significant announcement and in that announcement made a list of changes that were going to be put in place immediately.

I e-mailed my staff on my BlackBerry immediately and said, "Get the press release as soon as it comes out," because I'm not aware of any time this government's made a good-news announcement that it hasn't been followed up by a press release. We have yet to see the press release from that announcement. We couldn't get it. It wasn't there. That's what we were told.

[1630]

I asked around about that. One of the things I found was that there might be an oops there, in that Treasury Board was not approached on these announcements. I was told they were costed at about $100 million. The minister ended up getting approval after the fact for about $15 million of those announcements.

The minister made a number of announcements at that time. If that's the case, what was the change in the announcements? What can be implemented this year? What can't be implemented from the list, at that time, of five or six items that he indicated would be taken care of?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not unusual for this minister not to do a press release. Actually, it's a ministry that just gets on with its business.

What already has been done is that more weigh scaling was put in place in the coast; variable offset for old growth has been implemented; X, Y and U pulp are being properly priced; and the review of the MPS equations on the coast with variable pricing is being done. Those were the commitments that were made at the time. We are working through some other issues, which I promised in my comments to the truck loggers that we would do. Basically, this is a work-in-progress, but to date that's what we've accomplished out of that.

B. Simpson: With respect to the changes in the log grades, one of the things that the minister stated at the time was that waste billing, cruise grades and the log grades would all result in more waste being left behind on the ground. That's what I have in my notes. If the minister didn't say that, then I didn't take the notes down properly.

I'm aware that this issue has been raised, however, with the minister, at least at the senior staff level — about the fact that we are going to end up, as a result of these changes, leaving more waste out on the land base. To the minister: is that a concern as a result of the take-or-pay program and the reduction in the X-, Y- and U-grade stumpage on the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, waste is always a concern. We believe the opposite: with the X

[ Page 4298 ]

and U pulp properly priced, we're hoping for increased utilization. That was one of the reasons we looked at the change: we'd see increased utilization of the pulp log.

It's certainly not anticipated that we would see an increase in waste as a result of our changes. Our whole drive, obviously, is to decrease any waste in the forests — given the reality of forests — from the standpoint that there will always be a certain amount of waste left for biodiversity reasons, to help with reforestation and that sort of stuff. The whole objective was to get those pulp logs properly priced so that we'd actually get some utilization of them.

[1635]

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, is he suggesting that waste was not raised as an issue with ministry staff around changes to the grades, the waste allowance and the take-or-pay program on the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member: waste is always part of the discussion. We consulted with pulp companies, truck loggers and industry. They supported the change and thought it would have a more positive impact on the reduction of waste. That was part of our consultation as we came through this process.

There's always an issue in some quarters with regard to waste, but we'd like to see as much utilization as possible, and that's what's driving our objectives. Of course, we will monitor it to make sure that our objectives are getting there through ongoing monitoring, because that's how we see if there's any improvement. If we don't, then we have to look at what else we have to do.

B. Simpson: With respect to the waste that's out there, one of the concerns being raised with me is, again, our positioning in the marketplace if somebody starts taking some pictures of these, puts them on websites and mounts a campaign against it. There's a campaign that we attempted to avoid with the Forest Practices Code with all of its warts.

The other aspect of this is that I'm being told by industry folks that we haven't had good burn windows for a significant time in certain areas on the coast, so we have a compounding effect where we have very large slash piles that have been sitting for quite some time. Again, with respect to these burn windows, will there be any adjustments to the burn windows to allow for some of this waste to be burned? Is there a concern on the part of the ministry about a public backlash against the amount of waste that's being left out on the ground?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member: first of all, I'm not going to let the comment go with regard to our operation on the coast and with regard to anything that indicates that we don't practice high quality, professional forestry in British Columbia. I wouldn't want that to be on the public record from this Legislature for anybody to use in some kind of campaign against this province — when we're one of the best, if not the best, in the world at forest practices in this province.

[1640]

On the issues that the member brings up, we're always prepared to look at the windows. When we look at the windows, we look at them in terms of the public safety aspects. The member is right. There have been some periods where the piles have been built up, with the windows being too short because of weather or risk. As that adapts, we allow for that to be adjusted. We take into account our best biodiversity and reforestation practices, and as we look at our utilization in addition to that, we look at our policies to make sure that they are reflective of the utilization we want to accomplish.

That is why we looked at the X and the U for the pricing, because industry felt that would be beneficial. We also thought that this lower-value wood…. If the price was in the marketplace where it was really priced for use, it would get the utilization.

It's a combination of things. We monitor it very closely, ongoing, by region and area and district. We do that down to even the cutblock levels. If we determine that there is a particular operation that seems to be leaving excessive waste, we have the ability to make them go into what they call a re-log to do that. We have the ability to make them do that and to put the power on them, and they pay the cost.

We do have tools that we will use if necessary, if we think some of these practices are outside of what we think they should be. There are things that we do. Frankly, it's been a concern that…. Initially, when I became the minister, I didn't understand it until we started to look at what the pricing of the pulp logs were and their utilization and where we could get those logs to go for someone to be interested in using them. All of those things we address and try and work through as we go through this.

B. Simpson: I would echo the minister's concerns about the positioning of our forest stewardship, but I can tell you that out on the land base, and I know the ministry must be aware of it, there are concerns about whether or not we're losing ground on forest stewardship in this province.

With respect to the burning and fire and so on, I want to canvass that tomorrow under the topic of forest health. Let me move to another area of concern on the coast, and that's the removal of private lands from tree farm licences. How many of the coastal tree farm licences have now had their private lands removed?

Hon. R. Coleman: We started to walk around the discussion of what and who may be, and I said that if we don't have that information here in the accurate form, what we'll do is we will undertake to get the information to the member by tree farm licence as to what has happened. If, in any of these instances, and

[ Page 4299 ]

we know there have been some, we don't have that information here, we will get it for the member.

B. Simpson: This is something that I would like, if at all possible, on the public record, because it is a significant issue on the coast, as I'm sure the minister is well aware. So if that's possible for when we reconvene tomorrow, then that would be important.

My understanding, and I'm looking at a letter dated April 12, is that on tree farm licence 44 the removal of the private lands is currently in dispute. Just so that I'm clear, is that correct — that the removal of private lands from TFL 44 is currently in dispute?

[1645]

Hon. R. Coleman: The matter may be before the courts, which I wouldn't comment on. I will advise the member at this point in time that I will not be answering specific operational questions with regards to TFL 44. If he has any questions, he can arrange — and we will offer up — a separate briefing with regards to those questions by the deputy minister.

B. Simpson: Let me see, then, if I can get to the question that I want to get to with respect to private lands with reference to TFL 39 and TFL 46. Are those available for discussion at this point?

Hon. R. Coleman: On TFL 46 we're fine, but we still don't have the detail that the member's looking for. It would probably be best for us to bring it and give it to him in the House tomorrow or get it to him, because even if we get into the individual discussion with regards to private lands and those, we don't have the technical information which the member asked us to have by tomorrow. We think we can accomplish that by tomorrow.

B. Simpson: Fair enough. I'll table that discussion.

Just one comment with respect to the situation in Port Alberni that involves TFL 44 and involves private lands and so on. The minister committed in the House under questioning that he would make efforts to be in Port Alberni over the Easter break. The member sitting beside me and I were up there last week, and we were asked the question: where's the minister? We're both heading up there again this week. We'd like to be able to answer that question. Does the minister have it on his calendar to visit Port Alberni anytime in the near future?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess you can answer the question to them as a result of what happened on Thursday of last week. As of the time that we raised for the spring break, I have been engaged in the softwood lumber file. I travelled to Washington during that period of time. Also, I was engaged almost daily, which basically trumped the ability to make all those types of trips during that period of time.

I did make the commitment that I would get up to that area, which I will do after the break. I've asked my staff to look at where that fits in, in the next 30 to 60 days. Obviously, it depends on a number of factors, which is some scheduling that is sometimes outside our purview. I apologize that I didn't get up there in the break. I think that the file I had to work on was pretty important for Canada and for the U.S. and for British Columbia. I was tied up on softwood, frankly.

[1650]

I probably could get still get tied up on softwood at different periods of time, but the intense side of the negotiations and that sort of stuff are finished, I guess, so we'll get up there. The commitment's there, and that commitment will be followed through on.

B. Simpson: Let's move on, then, to another favourite topic on the coast: log exports. I had hoped to deal with this in relation to private land removal — so we may have to deal with it just now, and come back to it — because they are connected.

How many OICs currently exist on the coast for exemptions from the provincial supply test?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two particular OICs on the north coast and the central coast which I think the member is aware of and which are supported in those communities in those areas for obvious reasons: for the lack of manufacturing, etc. The surplus test is applied in the Vancouver log market on others. We will get you the list of any other OICs, which evidently can be a fluid list. We will get you those — probably even in the same package you'll get tomorrow morning. That's where that sits.

B. Simpson: When we canvassed log exports in question period — again, the member sitting beside me and I did this together — we asked the minister at that time if there was any intention of increasing log exports on the coast. We were told that that was not the intent, that we were not going to increase log exports and so on. Yet at the end of the Great Bear discussions and all the hoopla, we find out that on the central coast there's an OIC for a lift of 35 percent.

With that in mind and because of time constraints and other topics, I won't pursue that, but are there other OICs currently in the works for whole-log exports on the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are no other ones at this time, hon. member, and at the time the answer was given in the Legislature, there hadn't been an approval of an OIC, so you wouldn't be able to say there was, either.

You should recognize, though, with the central coast one, that was a specific request from a number of first nations up the coast and was supported by the first nations and communities throughout that area with regards to that OIC. It was after meeting with those groups that we allowed for that period of time to have them establish some things they thought they needed to establish.

They thought they could create some employment for some of their first nations communities by estab-

[ Page 4300 ]

lishing a log dump in one of the communities. There has been a real problem with logs off the central coast; particularly, getting to any marketplace and having buyers. That was why that one was done. I remember, actually, a very pointed and somewhat emotional presentation made to me by some of the first nations on the central coast with regards to that decision, asking for it.

[1655]

B. Simpson: In terms of process again, was it possible for the minister to give an OIC just for the first nations? My understanding of this OIC is that it covers all licensees in that region. From a technical perspective, would it have been possible for the OIC for this 35 percent lift to be given to only the operating areas and licences under the first nations' control?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was possible. It wouldn't have been fair, and it wasn't the request.

B. Simpson: The request from first nations covered the other operating areas? They asked for the entire region, and they asked for the other operators to also be covered under the OIC? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they asked for the north coast OIC to be extended southward. That's what they asked for. So that covered all licensees in that area.

B. Simpson: With respect to log exports from the coast and the generalized fear on the coast that what we're doing is converting away from manufacturing to being land developers and log exporters, and going back to the discussion we had around Western Forest Products, Western Forest Products now has within their control the capacity to shut mills down strategically to create a log oversupply situation. Is there anything to prevent, then, Western Forest Products, as the major licensee on the coast, from creating regional log oversupplies and coming to the minister and asking for an OIC because there's a de facto insufficient manufacturing in that area, and they just convert it to log exports?

Hon. R. Coleman: They can ask, but there's a whole different dynamic between…. If the member is familiar with the north coast and central coast versus Vancouver Island and down the rest of the coast, there are lots of companies that buy logs on the open market for their manufacturing facilities. It would be pretty unlikely that you would be able to create that situation with regards to the rest of that area, because quite frankly, there are markets for those logs, I'm told, and there are lots of manufacturers who have a thirst for the product.

When you talk about log exports, the majority of log exports on the coast don't come off Crown lands, as the member is aware. They come off private lands.

B. Simpson: Since the minister brought up federal log exports, it's my understanding that there will be a court challenge against the federal test for log exports. My understanding is it will be this month. Will the ministry be seeking intervener status in that court challenge against the federal supply test?

[1700]

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a federal court case, and it's the federal government. We're aware of the position that the federal government is taking in the court case. We support that. They're defending it against the parties that have, I guess, launched the suit. Some of our folks may actually be involved in being called with regards to the case, but that hasn't been definitively decided in all cases yet.

We certainly have an interest in it in the fact that when I've talked