2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. Cancer Agency researchers

Hon. K. Falcon

Greg Kamenka

H. Lali

Edith Crispin

Hon. P. Bell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Olympic Torch Relay and events

J. McIntyre

Kiwassa Neighbourhood Services Association

S. Simpson

Richmond Chinese Community Society

R. Howard

Community Living Month

N. Simons

Okanagan Wine Festival

J. Slater

Breastfeeding Challenge and support for breastfeeding mothers

J. Kwan

Oral Questions

Education funding

C. James

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

R. Austin

Coquitlam school district funding

D. Thorne

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Kamloops-Thompson school district funding and school closing

H. Lali

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Early intervention program for children with autism

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

Provincial Health Services Authority contract with Jonathan Burns

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Cowichan Tribes and VANOC Olympic clothing line

B. Routley

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Wood First Act

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

J. Rustad

B. Simpson

T. Lake

D. Donaldson

M. Sather

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

G. Gentner

M. Mungall

H. Lali

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

G. Coons

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Bond

N. Simons

H. Bains

[ Page 1037 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have three guests to introduce today. First are Ruth and Alan Ratcliffe, who are here visiting Victoria from the U.K. They're visiting Ruth's sister Dorothy Hayward from Victoria, a constituent of mine and also a longtime member who has worked at the Office of the Ombudsman since its inception. So she's worked for a number of different individuals. I'd like the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: Today in the gallery we have two gentlemen that were here earlier today with the Association for Mineral Exploration of British Columbia, making a presentation to the Finance Committee. That's Gavin Dirom, who's the head of the association, and Byng Giraud, who is a member of the board. Could the House please make those two gentlemen welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today we have Jenipher from the community health centre. Jenipher is a cross-cultural health promoter. She has a group of 25 African immigrant and refugee women touring the Parliament Buildings today and learning about the history of British Columbia. Please join me to welcome them all.

J. McIntyre: It is with great pride today that I would like the House to join me in welcoming two very special people in my life in the gallery with us today. They're

Winn Barclay and my father, John Gillespie QC. They've flown from Ontario to be with us over Thanksgiving weekend and to see us in action.

I just want to acknowledge publicly that my dad has been the foundation in my life. I love you, and thank you for being here.

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to introduce to the House Brian Fehr, a good friend of mine down from Vanderhoof. Brian is down meeting with a number of ministers and a number of MLAs over the course of the day. On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Valemount and Prince George–Mackenzie, I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a very special guest and a good friend of mine, a good helper, Paul Keenleyside. He's a webmaster, and he runs many websites. He has his own website about the B.C. highways, which had more than 450,000 visitors, and he has his own website, started in 2005 until now, about the B.C. ferries, showing construction, launch and deckhouse assembly and sea trials and the inaugural cruise of the new ferries built at the FSG shipyard in Germany.

He's a prominent member of the community. He's always helping people out on many boards. He has been involved in about 60 different elections at the municipal level, provincial level and federal level. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to introduce a guest who's brand-new to British Columbia. You may not be able to see him in the gallery. He's not very tall — 53 centimetres. His name is Noah Russ Costa. He was born at 3:40 this morning here in Victoria, 7 pounds 12½ ounces, to his beautiful mom, Claudia Costa. His father is Frank "Radar" Costa — he's bursting with pride — a long-serving member of our caucus staff. It's a pleasure to have him as my ministerial assistant. Would you all please welcome Noah Russ Costa.

Tributes

B.C. CANCER AGENCY RESEARCHERS

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I want to thank a special group of B.C. scientists and researchers. As we sit in the House today, the B.C. Cancer Agency in Vancouver is making a major announcement that is a watershed event in the history of research and treatment of breast cancer.

[1340]

For the first time in world history, B.C. Cancer Agency scientists have decoded all of the three billion letters in the DNA sequence of metastatic lobular breast cancer, which is responsible for about 10 percent of breast cancer incidents. This achievement helps unlock the secrets of how breast cancer begins and spreads and charts the path for developing a treatment for a disease that affects far too many women.

We are proud of the work of our B.C. scientists and researchers. I would ask all members of the House to applaud their efforts and their national and international leadership in this regard.

GREG KAMENKA

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I stand here to share some sad news with the Legislative Assembly. Just five minutes ago I received a phone call from my constituency on the passing of Coun. Greg Kamenka of the district of Lillooet. He was the former mayor of the district of Lillooet, and he died suddenly yesterday.

[ Page 1038 ]

I would like the Speaker, on behalf of all of us, to pass on our condolences to Greg Kamenka's family and also to the district and the community of Lillooet.

EDITH CRISPIN

Hon. P. Bell: October 7 is an important day for Prince George. It marks the 105th birthday of Edith Crispin, who was originally born in Ontario. Edith recalls that her happiest-ever moment was getting married to her husband Roy on December 14, 1927, when they went and moved and homesteaded in Saskatchewan.

In 1935 they sold everything and took a Bennett buggy and left for British Columbia, where they have resided since. After the war the family eventually settled in Burnaby on a lot that Edith had purchased during the war using her pay from her job at Eaton's. Roy then built a house. Roy was a bit quirky and never seemed to finish anything, and that was the trademark of their house in Burnaby.

When asked what technological changes made the most significant difference in her 105-year life, she said that the crystal radio that they purchased in 1918 truly transformed them.

Edith now lives in the Prince George Chateau in my riding and enjoys her visits with many of her friends and visitors. She remains active today, attending most meal times in the dining room and occasionally going out to the mall for a visit.

Her family is remarkable too, including her daughter in Reno, five grandchildren, seven great-grandchildren and ten great-great-grandchildren.

After more than ten and a half decades, what's the secret to a fulfilling life, Mr. Speaker? Edith says: "I don't know. I just keep going, I guess." I'd ask the entire House to please congratulate Edith on her 105th birthday.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to introduce a very important person in my life. My father Doug McRae is in the House today. Not only was he a great high school teacher in the Comox Valley for a long time before he retired several years; he's also been a great grandfather to Gracie, and he's been a great father to me. I would like the House to make him welcome, please.

L. Reid: On behalf of the Speaker today, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery. They're participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

I'm also pleased to welcome to the Legislature today Wayne and Barb Watson. They are joined by Douglas and Merrill Noseworthy, who are visiting from the glorious state of California. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

H. Bloy: Hon. Speaker, It's my pleasure today to introduce a friend of the B.C. Liberal Party and a friend of mine in our ridings of Burnaby North, who's been very helpful over the years — Garth Evans. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1345]

N. Simons: I would just like to say hello to an individual who is unable to be here because he's actually currently living in a correctional facility in this province, and he's watching us today. I want to say hi to him and all his friends and hope that they take an interest in politics and the importance that it might play in their life both on the inside and when they come back out.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, amends the following statutes: Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; Assessment Act; College and Institute Act; College of Applied Biology Act; Community Care Act; Health Professions Act; Judicial Compensation Act; Ministry of Environment Act; Municipalities Enabling And Validating Act (No. 3); Sheriff Act; Treaty First Nations Taxation Act; University Act; Vancouver Charter.

The bill also makes some minor housekeeping and clarifying amendments to a number of other statutes.

I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, 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.

[ Page 1039 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY AND EVENTS

J. McIntyre: In 128 days the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games will begin in Vancouver and Whistler. While we've been counting down since we were first awarded the games, the official countdown begins in earnest with the torch relay.

After the flame is lit in Olympia, it will be handed to representatives from Canada, and by October 30 it will be right here in Victoria for the start of Canada's relay.

As one of the most enduring symbols of the games, the torch's route is unique in its scope. The 2010 Olympic Torch Relay is the longest route ever in a single country, visiting more than a thousand communities across Canada, including 119 aboriginal communities. An honorary firekeeper will provide a traditional blessing in each community as the flame continues on its journey.

The torch relay will be spending more than a quarter of its route in B.C., and more than 3,500 British Columbians will serve as torchbearers, providing a legacy to them, their families and their communities. Over 268 communities in B.C. will be torch communities, allowing over 90 percent of B.C. residents to be within a one-hour drive of the route.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky residents from West Van and all the way up the Sea to Sky corridor will have the chance to see the Olympic flame as it travels through our area just prior to the opening ceremonies on February 12.

Across B.C., 50 communities were selected to be celebration communities, giving them the chance to showcase to residents and visitors what the Olympic spirit means to their communities with activities and performances.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky three communities were selected to be celebration communities — West Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler. I know they will use the opportunity to inspire and engage their residents as the games approach.

It's a historic time to be a British Columbian, and I urge all to take this opportunity to really experience and enjoy the excitement and spirit of the Olympics as the torch relay comes through your community. Congratulations to all the volunteers, organizers and sponsors. May the spirit live on.

KIWASSA NEIGHBOURHOOD

SERVICES ASSOCIATION

S. Simpson: In 1949 the Kiwassa club of Vancouver was established in an old fire hall on Vernon Drive in East Vancouver to serve the children and families with a focus on the growing immigrant community.

The Kiwassa club became Kiwassa Neighbourhood House, and it has evolved into a remarkable organization over its 60 years of service. Moving from Vernon Drive to Oxford Street in 1992, it has developed into one of the key organizations in the Hastings-Sunrise community — delivering children and youth programs, seniors programs, employment and settlement services and a food bank, as well as running four child care centres and two affordable housing developments.

Kiwassa plays a unique role as a multifaceted and resourced community institution. Kiwassa is a wonderful example of how community development truly should work. They have always seen themselves as a resource for the broader community that needs to be flexible and innovative in how it responds to community needs.

I know the support they provided to those wanting to increase community access to Hastings Park, opposing a concrete batch plant beside New Brighton Park or supporting the Trinity Street Lights Competition fundraiser. Kiwassa always provided administrative support, resources and encouragement, as well as sound advice when tough decisions were being made.

[1350]

Community leaders across Hastings-Sunrise could point to many other examples of the critical role Kiwassa has played in their success on other issues. Their success can be traced to a wonderful committed staff under the leadership of the current executive director, Nancy McRitchie, and her predecessor Steve Boyce, both of whom built great teams that have served our community well.

The other key to Kiwassa is its volunteer board of directors. Some of the very best community leaders I've had the privilege to have known have found their way onto the Kiwassa board over the years. Their leadership and keen understanding of community has provided the vision for what a neighbourhood house should be, and the staff has faithfully delivered that vision through their programs on the ground.

After 60 years of service, I know I speak for the thousands who have benefited from Kiwassa over those years in saying: "Congratulations on your accomplishments, and here's to 60 more years of Kiwassa serving East Vancouver."

RICHMOND CHINESE COMMUNITY SOCIETY

R. Howard: It is my pleasure today to rise to speak to the 20th anniversary of a very special community group that has strong roots in Richmond. The Richmond Chinese Community Society is celebrating 20 years of service to the Richmond community. From humble beginnings two decades ago, this non-profit charitable organization has grown to become one of the premiere community organizations today.

[ Page 1040 ]

RCCS was originally set up to involve the Chinese community in decision-making with the city and to further involve the Richmond Chinese community in various activities in our city. They have stayed true to their roots and their cause, and today they have a membership of approximately 1,000.

This very hard-working and successful group hosts many community events such as the lunar festival, the seniors health fair and their very successful community dinner, to name just a few. They also hold many different classes that bring people out of their homes and into the community. Through their educational seminars and exercise and dance classes, RCCS provides opportunities to interact with others, learn new skills and keep fit.

In 2005 RCCS was awarded the very first city of Richmond community achievement award for outstanding contributions to intercultural diversity in our city. The longstanding executive director, Henry Beh, and his wife, Glenda, team up with a very hard-working volunteer board of directors, including this year's president, Clara Chow, and vice-president Nancy Li. They've also started a new youth group, which we're all very excited about.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating RCCS on 20 years of service to our community.

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

N. Simons: I rise today to recognize the province of British Columbia's proclamation of this month of October as Community Living Month. This proclamation gives us the opportunity to formally recognize and publicly acknowledge people in our communities who have developmental disabilities, as well as to acknowledge those who work with them.

People with developmental disabilities are those who have had a chronic condition since childhood which will require that they receive lifelong supports to live as independently as possible in all aspects of their lives. Those who work with them include their caregivers, their siblings, their families and their friends. Their community includes their coaches, their co-workers and bosses, their bus drivers, folks at the grocery store, their school friends, ferry workers, teachers. And the list goes on.

In fact, the list includes everyone, the entire community. After all, the proclamation recognizes the importance of community inclusion. When I use the word "family," I do so in the broadest sense, so let's today pay a special tribute to the families and extended families of people with developmental disabilities.

We often marvel at their strength and courage, their resilience and their patience. We're impressed by their ability to juggle complicated schedules that include more doctor visits, more therapy sessions, more appointments than any of us would believe or care to imagine. We hold them up on a pedestal as examples of extraordinary strength and perseverance.

But they are regular families doing regular things, often struggling with unforeseen challenges with grace and with skill. They are the families of teachers, firefighters, politicians and business owners, actors, hockey coaches, single parents and musicians. They are regular families in this community.

While we marvel at their resilience and admire their advocacy skills, we can do more. Let's recognize and support essential community programs that exist to make the lives of people with developmental disabilities more fulfilling but that also provide their families with the opportunities to see their loved ones achieve their fullest potential.

[1355]

OKANAGAN WINE FESTIVAL

J. Slater: The Okanagan Wine Festival, held annually during the harvest time, focuses on wine, food, education and the arts. In 1996 the Okanagan Wine Festival received an international recognition, as it was ranked among the top 100 events in North America by the prestigious American Bus Association, a ranking that it continues to receive today.

It is important to note that the Okanagan is the only wine-producing region of the world that hosts this festival during its harvest season. The festival provides an experience for everyone who loves fabulous wine accompanied by great locally produced food and unique events.

One of those events is the Festival of the Grape held last Saturday in Oliver, the wine capital of Canada. This annual event was first launched in 1997. This is an all-day family event organized by the South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce and consists of more than 30 wineries, live music and entertainment, kids crafts and games, a grape-stomp competition, wine seminars and art displays.

If you missed the Festival of the Grape, you will be able to attend the grand finale consumer tasting event being hosted by Valley First Credit Union — Mr. Speaker, as you know — held in Penticton on October 9 and 10. This is a wine tour under one roof — sip, sample, spit and dance. This event is for those who want to explore some of the finest wines for the first time, as well as for those who want to expand their wine knowledge.

There will be over 60 wineries present and 240 different wines to sample. Take this opportunity to learn more about local wines and the foods they best complement. As the Okanagan Wine Festival continues until the 11th of this month, I want to urge everyone to take advantage of more than 165 events in this area.

BREASTFEEDING CHALLENGE AND

SUPPORT FOR BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS

J. Kwan: The sight of a baby usually brings a warm smile from members of the public. We can't help ourselves. When we see a little baby, we go ga-ga and goo-goo, even

[ Page 1041 ]

though everyone knows they often look like wrinkled little monkeys — yes, my children included. But still, when you see a new baby, it's a beautiful sight.

You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. You yourself are enjoying your second grandchild. The slightest mention of them, and your face lights up. See what I mean? [Laughter.]

On October 3 proud moms and dads gathered together with their babies at the Trout Lake Community Centre to celebrate in the world breastfeeding challenge. This international event began in 2001, and by last year there were over 7,600 children feeding in 19 countries at 300 sites with over 20,000 supporters at 11 o'clock. On last Saturday when I arrived at the Trout Lake Community Centre, I received a sticker, and it read: "I make milk. What's your superpower?"

Breast milk contains close to 200 compounds that fight infection, help the immune system mature, aid in digestion and support brain growth. Breastfeeding helps to lower the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, not to mention the incredible feeling of hugging your baby close to your heart while you're nursing — the ultimate bonding experience.

The WHO recommends that mothers nurse their babies until they're two years old. So why do we still hear of stories of roadblocks and obstacles for nursing mothers? Last year a woman in Vancouver was hustled off to a back room at H&M when she was breastfeeding her two-month-old baby in the store.

In Minneapolis a woman returning from a two-day business trip was forced to pour out her two-day supply of milk by the airport security. I myself was not allowed on a flight to Kamloops for an all-day caucus meeting because I had my breast pump and these specialized ice packs with me. Due to the Minneapolis incident, a human rights complaint was filed, and the U.S. Transport Security Administration reclassified human milk as liquid medication. Indeed, breast milk is like liquid gold to a nursing mom.

Let's break through the barriers. Let's celebrate the magic of breastfeeding, and let's just do what the old Madonna song says: "Express yourself."

Mr. Speaker: The extra 30 seconds was for my grandson, the angel.

[1400]

Oral Questions

EDUCATION FUNDING

C. James: Yesterday the B.C. parent advisory council, B.C. School Trustees Association, B.C. Teachers Federation and the Canadian Union of Public Employees came together to express their concerns about the B.C. Liberal education cuts.

This is what they said those cuts will mean: "Long-term instability, larger class sizes, reduced support for students, including those with special needs. School sporting events will be at risk. Parent advisory councils will have to reduce support for student supplies, field trips, computers, library books. Schools in poorer communities will be hardest hit."

My question is to the Minister of Education. Time and again we've seen her stand up in this House and cover up for the Liberal failures on education. Today, with all of these voices speaking out, will the minister finally stand up and admit she's wrong?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to get up and talk about one of the finest education systems in the world. These are our valued partners. These are our partners with whom we work. These are people like everyone in this House — everyone, yourself and everyone else, who strongly believes in our education system and how much we need to do for our students. We work with these partners. I've met with these partners, and I'll continue to do so.

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

C. James: I would suggest to the minister that she's forgetting something. Listen to the partners. Listen to the partners in education, who are expressing their concerns about real cuts and real impacts to the system.

During the election we heard the B.C. Liberals say they were going to protect education. What's the result? Cuts to annual facility grants, cuts to parent advisory councils, cuts to sports programs, unfunded costs like the HST and increases in MSP premiums.

Again to the minister: will she stand up today and explain to B.C.'s parents, to teachers, to school workers and trustees how gutting education and hitting a cash-strapped system with new costs lives up to their commitment to protect education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're certainly hearing about some new math here in the House today. We are funding education this year at a record level — $4.5 billion going to classrooms in this province this year, an $84 million increase over last year's funding. That's in spite of the fact that we expect about 7,000 fewer students in B.C. classrooms this fall, a declining enrolment that's the reality of the demographics of this province and North America.

Not only are we funding education to that degree, but we're also spending $447 million in new schools, in upgrades and in seismic projects this year alone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[ Page 1042 ]

C. James: Is the Minister of Education saying to teachers and support staff who see the impacts every single day that they're wrong? Is the Minister of Education saying to school trustees who are elected to govern the system on behalf of their communities that they are wrong? Is the minister saying to parents who know that if their child is in an overcrowded classroom and doesn't have the resources, they don't get that year back…? Is the minister saying that those people are wrong?

Another person who's speaking out is the chair of the Cowichan Valley school district. They've written to the minister. They asked the minister to meet with them. The minister refused. They sent a second request and said to the minister: "On behalf of the board of education, I'd like to reiterate our request to meet with you. We can accommodate your schedule."

Again to the minister: why is she refusing to listen to the Cowichan school board, to parents, to trustees, to educators in the system? Why won't she listen to their concerns about the problems in the education system?

[1405]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have been pleased to meet with many of our education partners since I've been appointed. I have met with the B.C. Teachers Federation, with the trustees and with all of the other partners. I'm certainly open and willing and will be meeting with them again.

Clearly, when we meet, we exchange ideas, and we listen to each other as we talk. But one of the things we will be doing this fall is reconvening the Learning Roundtable so that the partners can sit and talk about the important issues that face our education system.

This talk about not funding education…. This year alone we're making record investments once again, including in early learning where we're investing in new StrongStart centres. The list goes on and on, and I am pleased to talk about it.

R. Austin: This minister is more focused on covering up for B.C. Liberal failures than addressing the kinds of concerns that were raised in this letter. The fact is that it's our school districts and trustees that have to bear the brunt of this government's mismanagement of the public education system.

My question to the minister is simple. When is she going to stop covering up for B.C. Liberal incompetence and start listening to and acting on the concerns of B.C.'s parents, the teachers, the school workers and their elected representatives?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This government has clearly demonstrated its ability to listen to what's important to British Columbians. That's why we have record investments in schools year after year after year — $4.5 billion this year — and we're investing in things that British Columbians say really matter to them, things like StrongStart centres. There are two of those StrongStart B.C. centres in the member opposite's riding alone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The trouble is this. The B.C. Liberals give with one hand and take with the other, and they don't give as much as they take. They continue to add costs to our system. The facilities grant was far greater than the increase in per-pupil student funding. MSP premiums come on top of that. H1N1 comes on top of that. All of these are increased costs, not to mention the HST.

Again to the minister: when will she commit to acting on the concerns of groups right across this province, and will she act today to protect public education as was promised in the recent election?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm happy to review these issues — no problem. We can talk about them again. The annual facilities grant…. I will remind the members opposite of what this is. This is a grant that goes out, which is for maintaining school properties. It's for new lighting. It's for painting. It's for projects which we've said to school districts this year….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've said this year…. We would like school districts to use reserves, to slow down their projects, to back off on these projects for this year. We certainly have invested….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly have continued to invest record amounts, though, in our schools in things such as early learning. That's why we're turning…. And next year we'll be funding full-day kindergarten, again something British Columbians have told us we need to do, we must do, and we are doing it.

COQUITLAM SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

D. Thorne: Let's just look at how this government's policies are hurting public education in my community. In a letter to the minister, the chair of school district

[ Page 1043 ]

43 expresses the board's disappointment with unilateral funding announcements and adjustments to previously announced grants with no concern for the impact — unilateral announcements that lead to cuts, new pressure and chaos. That's how this B.C. Liberal government likes to do its business.

[1410]

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why did she refuse to consult the elected representatives, the parents and the teachers in my riding before she saddled the school district with cuts and new costs?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm very pleased to talk about the investments that we have made in the member opposite's riding. Let's talk about Centennial Secondary. A full replacement of the school — a $49 million investment.

Ranch Park Elementary — seismic upgrades. It's proceeding now. A $5.75 million investment. Baker Drive Elementary — seismic upgrades, $5.3 million of investments.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are challenging times for all those who govern. For the provincial government, for school districts — without question — there is uncertainty with respect to the economy. This year we don't have more money to invest beyond what we've already committed. That is what we are discussing with the school districts. We need to find out how we can best meet students' needs within the resources that we have.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: You know, that's all fine and good, but I'd like to remind the minister.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second so we can hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: I'll finish my sentence. I was going to say, to remind the minister, that it takes money to run those new schools, and that's something we have a short supply of. Just another example of B.C. Liberal incompetence when it comes to running the education system. We have nothing.

As my colleague stated a few moments ago, giving with one hand and taking with the other is causing total havoc in the Coquitlam school district — the third largest in British Columbia. The annual facilities grant — a $5.3 million cut. PAC funding cut in half. Sports programs gone. Even more importantly, this school district alone will pay for unfunded salary increases to the tune of $800,000 this year alone. Untold thousands of other…

Mr. Speaker: Member, question. Member, pose your question, please.

D. Thorne: …unfunded cuts. Again to the minister: will she put an end to her one-sided decisions, and will she work with the Coquitlam school district to clean up the mess that this government has caused in my community's public education system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I expect I'm not the only one who feels a bit of irony here coming from the member opposite — a government that, when they were in power, froze capital spending. There was no capital spending for schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1415]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We do continue, in spite of the economic challenges, to invest in our students. We are increasing funding this year — 84 million additional dollars in spite of declining enrolment. That's the reality of what we're doing. It's there in the budget, and the school districts are all receiving at least the same amount of funding, if not more, in spite of declining enrolment.

Getting back to Coquitlam-Maillardville, to the member opposite's riding, we've invested in Parkland Elementary seismic upgrades — $1.2 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

KAMLOOPS-THOMPSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

FUNDING AND SCHOOL CLOSING

H. Lali: The minister reads from a cheat sheet about opposition members' ridings. I wonder if it includes the….

An Hon. Member: A cheat sheet?

[ Page 1044 ]

H. Lali: Background notes.

I wonder if the minister's notes also include the 200 schools that they have closed across British Columbia. Will she actually go there and tell those people in those communities how it's education that they are protecting?

This Liberal government is cutting $3 million worth of funding from the Kamloops-Thompson school district, including the closing that they're proposing of 12 schools. One of them is in Logan Lake. They want to combine the elementary and the secondary school in Logan Lake and ship all of the grade 11s and 12s on a 2½-hour round trip to go to school in Kamloops. This is happening at a time when they need to actually improve their grades to get into various colleges and universities across this province.

I'd like the Minister of Education to tell this House and tell us how the Liberals can actually find $500,000 for the Premier's Olympics party, but they can't find $48,000 to keep the Logan Lake kids in Logan Lake schools.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Since 2001 in British Columbia, we've experienced a significant decline in enrolment. We have 60,000 fewer students enrolled in British Columbia schools than we did in 2001. This is the reality of the demographics in British Columbia and in North America.

School boards have a challenging role to play. They have to balance the needs of the students in their areas, and they have the autonomy to do that. In some cases, they do make the difficult decision that what is best for their district is for them to close schools when they have so many fewer students enrolled. It's a difficult decision. It's one that school districts have the autonomy to do, and they do it when it's necessary.

EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM

FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Children and Families questioned the effectiveness of the early intensive behavioural intervention program. Then she admitted that, in fact, autistic children do benefit from the therapy. Once again, today families have rallied to the Legislature looking to get the government's ear.

To the minister. I'd like to ask her: instead of cutting funding for the early intensive behaviour intervention program, will she take the $20 million from the fancy new research centre, meet with families and work with families and providers, go back to the table and try and find a way to find solutions that actually help autistic children here in the province of British Columbia? Will she do that?

Hon. M. Polak: Over the next four months our ministry will be working closely with the families who are affected by the EIBI change and with their service providers to ensure that they are able to have the help and support they need to transition to our autism funding program.

But make no mistake about it. This autism centre that is proposed is far more than bricks and mortar. This is a centre that will provide an invaluable connection to families in rural and isolated communities which right now don't have access to the kind of information and support that they need.

Mr. Speaker, this centre will impact the lives of thousands of families across this province challenged by autism.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Once again, we see the government going off and making no sense out of their actions. On the one hand they are cutting a very effective program, which will affect community research centres like the Queen Alexandra, and on the other hand we see the minister stand up and justify some fancy new research centre.

What the families in British Columbia want is for her to sit down and find a way to deliver effective intervention services for autistic children in the province. That is what they are asking. That's what they deserve, and the minister needs to say….Will she sit down with these families and find a better solution than just pulling the rug out from under these families?

Hon. M. Polak: There is no question that over the next four months we will be working closely with the families who will be experiencing what we know is a difficult change for them. But this is not about just those 70 families. This is about the more than 6,000 children with autism that we serve in the system each and every year.

I want to remind the member that far from there being cuts to programs for children with autism, our ministry alone has increased its autism budget this year by $1.6 million. That takes us to an amount that is now ten times what it was when this government took office.

If we include the $3.4 million from Health and the $72 million invested in the Ministry of Education for autism programs, we spend annually more than $120 million to help support children with autism in this province.

PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES

AUTHORITY CONTRACT

WITH JONATHAN BURNS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health Services with respect to untendered electronic health contracts and in particular the personal services contracts given by

[ Page 1045 ]

the Ministry of Health and its agencies to Dr. Jonathan Burns.

The official opposition has learned that in February 2007, at the same time Dr. Burns was being paid $30,000 a month to advise the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health, at the same time that he was continuing to charge MSP as a doctor and at the same time as he served as CEO of WebMed with contracts with all of the health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority gave a contract to Dr. Burns at nearly $200 an hour — $6,000 a week — to be their e-health adviser, presumably to lobby himself.

Can the minister tell the House whether the substantial contract given to Dr. Burns by the PHSA was tendered?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I've been in the House long enough to hear these kinds of wild allegations by this member over a whole range of issues. What I will tell the member is that I'll get the information for him. My understanding is that all of those contracts were tendered in accordance with the rules that govern the tendering of contracts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I'll be very interested to hear how that contract was tendered from the PHSA. I'd love to see where that tender existed, because I can tell the Minister of Health that it wasn't tendered.

Dr. Burns was being paid three ways by his colleague the former Minister of Health at the time and by the ministry — as a doctor, as an e-health adviser and as a CEO of a company.

Can the Minister of Health explain why the PHSA needs to hire a guy they were already paying $30,000 a month to be their e-health adviser and lobby the government? Can he tell us who authorized this contract, and does he think paying one guy four ways by one ministry is an appropriate way to do business?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said, I would be happy to get the information for the member. But as I've said, I've sat in this House for eight years, and I've heard virtually every wild allegation that's been put forward by that member turn out not to be the case.

[1425]

So we will get the facts. We will share those facts with the member opposite, and I won't be surprised if, in fact, the facts depart very clearly from what the member is alleging.

COWICHAN TRIBES AND

VANOC OLYMPIC CLOTHING LINE

B. Routley: Last week VANOC unveiled the clothing line for the 2010 Olympic Games. Prominent in the design of the clothing was the world-famous Cowichan sweater. VANOC has not brought in the Cowichan Tribes to seek approval to use the design. Nor has VANOC provided an opportunity for Cowichan knitters to produce the wool garments.

Could the Olympics Minister please explain exactly why the Cowichan Valley first nations have been excluded yet again from the economic opportunities providing authentic Cowichan sweaters for the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: I am not aware of the process that VANOC used in order to secure this contract, but I'm sure that if the member opposite was to contact VANOC, they'd be very willing to tell him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: I do, brother Speaker — hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: I want to add that VANOC has threatened legal action against businesses that use the Olympic logo or even use the word "Olympic" in their business name, yet they made no effort whatsoever to accommodate the creators of the Cowichan design or to provide employment for Cowichan artisans.

Will the minister commit today — it's the Minister for Olympics — to ensuring the Cowichan people are shown the respect that they rightly deserve, and will she ensure that the benefits from the Olympic clothing sales flow to those that actually inspired their creation?

Hon. M. McNeil: I would like to remind the member opposite that these Olympic Games have the first partnership ever with aboriginal peoples, and we are very proud of that. The four host first nations are working very closely in partnership with VANOC on a very strong art program as well as other partnerships.

This government is proud to be the host province for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in just 128 days from now. I'd also like to remind the member opposite that these games are going to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time we need it the most.

K. Corrigan: Well, if the minister is suggesting that we need to go talk to VANOC every time we have a

[ Page 1046 ]

question about the Olympics, I'm wondering why we need a minister for the Olympics.

Two years ago the Cowichan News Leader–Pictorial launched a campaign to have the Cowichan sweater form part of the Olympic uniform. Now VANOC has used the idea — and that's the nice way to put it — with no benefits or acknowledgment to the Cowichan people.

My question is for the Minister of State for the Olympics. How is this consistent with the Olympic ideal of fair play?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to remind the members opposite of the great partnership that the four host first nations have with VANOC, and they're working closely. I would also like to remind the members opposite that leaders around the world last week, as we saw, would welcome the opportunity to host the winter games that we are so lucky to have in just 128 days.

At UBCM last week I heard from many communities — 105 of them around the province who are vying to be GamesTown 2010. I wonder when the members opposite are going to join this side of the House in welcoming the Olympic Games to British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and in this chamber second reading of Bill 9, the Wood First Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — WOOD FIRST ACT

Hon. P. Bell: I move Bill 9 be read a second time.

Bill 9 encourages a cultural shift in the way that we use forest products and wood products, particularly in large commercial and institutional buildings. Bill 9 would require organizations that receive provincial funding for building projects to utilize best practices and implement the maximum potential amount of wood that can be used in any given project.

There is a tremendous potential for us to increase the global consumption of wood, of forest products, of value-added forest products as a result of this bill. Currently in North America only about 19 percent of the commercial and institutional marketplace utilizes wood, yet all of the science tells us that 93 percent of the projects that are built across North America could, in fact, be built out of wood and forest products. This is a substantial gap.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Not only that, but the real opportunity exists for a far more stable environment. Residential construction tends to have large swings in terms of the number of homes being built, as we've witnessed over the last number of years. We've gone from two million homes per year in the U.S. down to just 550,000 homes. The commercial institutional market is far more stable and doesn't see those sorts of dramatic swings.

On top of that, I will say that it is far more processed, more technical, more manufactured products that are used in the institutional and commercial sector. That's only good news for employment in British Columbia because it requires the further manufacturing of these forest products and a far higher level of employment.

We see this as a significant shift towards the value-added opportunity that we've long looked for here in British Columbia.

By applying the wood-first lens to all provincially funded projects, it brings to play about $3 billion worth of annual capital, whether it's a school, a hospital, an office building or one of the many structures that the province builds each and every year.

We need to lead the way, and that's what's really important here. British Columbia needs to demonstrate that we're prepared to put our money where our mouth is, that we believe very much in the large commercial and institutional opportunity. There are many benefits to that.

[1435]

If we lead the way, we truly can demonstrate to the globe what's possible. We have tremendous examples that we will be able to share with the world in just 127 days, Madam Speaker. The Richmond speed skating oval, which is located virtually right beside your riding or in your riding, is a tremendous example of that particular opportunity.

I must share also that the beams in that structure are tremendous, made with Interior Douglas fir milled at Kalesnikoff Lumber in the Kootenays, manufactured at Structurlam in Penticton and Okanagan Falls. The plywood that's on that roof was actually manufactured in Madam Speaker's own riding. Richmond Plywood — another great success story of a British Columbia–based forest company. Then, of course, the mountain pine beetle lumber was manufactured in the Cariboo. So a tremendous story in that particular facility.

But that's not the only one. There's the Squamish Adventure Centre, the Whistler Public Library, the Percy Norman pool — many other facilities — the new con-

[ Page 1047 ]

vention centre, which truly demonstrate the opportunities that come with building with wood.

By demonstrating Wood First here in British Columbia, we also believe that we can influence other governments to move in this direction. We've also been in discussions with the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. I've had brief discussions with our federal government. We see that this sort of thing could move right across Canada.

Interestingly, I attended a small conference last week of wood manufacturers from around the world, wood marketers, and they believe that there is an opportunity to extend this into the United States, New Zealand, Australia and other jurisdictions as well. So we're very excited about that.

Bill 9 also capitalizes on the green benefits of wood construction. Wood is the only building material that's renewable, sustainable, climate-friendly, lightweight, strong and cost-effective — all in one package. Wood is just a tremendous winner. Wood requires the least amount of energy to manufacture in the manufacture process, and using wood can offset climate change through carbon sequestration and, more properly said, carbon storage of previously sequestered carbon as a result of the growth of the tree.

An interesting little statistic: every tonne of wood materials used in construction saves about 5.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Putting this another way, 300 board feet of wood saves a single tonne of carbon dioxide.

Wood has superior insulating qualities as well. Building a mid-sized building, a school, out of wood can have a significant impact in terms of overall sequestered carbon. There was a study done on a middle school in Prince George built out of wood that stated that the benefit to the environment was the same as removing 10,620 cars from the road for a year — a truly dramatic number. Wood has superior insulating qualities — 400 times better than steel, 15 times better than concrete. It creates a far more energy-efficient building.

Bill 9 does fulfil one of the recommendations of the Working Round Table on Forestry — a commitment to using wood first. I think that setting this example truly will lead the way globally. It builds on our commitments from the February throne speech, and it will create a revenue opportunity across British Columbia. Whether you are a forest-dependent or a non-forest-dependent community, we all win from this initiative. It also promotes using a renewable and climate-friendly building product.

It brings us one more step forward to positioning British Columbia as a world leader in wood construction, in design and education.

N. Macdonald: Bill 9, the Wood First Act, is two pages long, and it is filled with language that is, to put it mildly, equivocal. The act is really — and I think the minister would agree with this — more an expression of sentiment, more a communication strategy than a real forestry strategy.

If you actually look at the bill and read what it says, the equivocation is clear. The minister did spend most of his speech, quite appropriately, talking about the importance of promoting the wood industry and the value of wood as a wonderful construction product. It is. It has proven itself over the centuries as an important product that British Columbia produces in a particularly efficient and effective manner.

[1440]

But any idea that the act that's in front of this House today is going to be in any way effective, I think, is really to raise expectations that are simply, again, not going to be met by B.C. Liberals with their forestry policy.

If you look at the bill — as I say, two pages long…. Included in that is a list of three

definitions that are fairly straightforward. There is a purpose which talks about requiring wood, but that purpose is not reflected in any of the remaining two sections of the bill. Best practices,

section 3, talks about…. The minister may "recommend best practices." He may "advise on the form and content of agreements." It then goes on with the ability, in

section 4, to make up regulations.

Equivocal to say the least. Is there any guarantee that it's going to be B.C. wood that is used? Well, what we have seen with this government…. We can go to an example that was highlighted during the election, where you had signs that were up advertising a government project. Was the wood from B.C.? It was not. It was American wood.

Is there anything in this bill or anything that the minister is going to do that is going to actually make sure that it's B.C. wood used? The answer is: likely not. No. Is there anything, actually, that the government can do within regulation to make sure that it's not from another jurisdiction? Is that going to be addressed with this bill? No. It won't be.

We have NAFTA. We have TILMA. We have other agreements. How much wood are we actually talking about here? Even if the three billion identified as institutional building was going to have elements of it with more wood, how much are we actually talking about? That value-added industry that the minister talks about? Well, that value-added industry has collapsed with this government. There have been over 60 value-added milling operations that were there when this government took power that are no longer there.

The type of goods that the minister is talking about were at some point produced in British Columbia. Very often many of those producers are no longer there. That is a direct result of B.C. forest policies — of policies deliberately put in place by this government — where there were promises of jobs, and there were promises of

[ Page 1048 ]

community stability, but the results have been a consistent failure. There has been unprecedented failure during the term and time of this B.C. Liberal government. You really cannot turn yourself away from those facts.

So we have Bill 9, which is supposed to be part, you would think, of some strategy. Really, as I say, it's more a communication plan than anything else. It is an indication of sentiment.

Well, the minister has stood up and talked about his sentiment about using wood first. But what British Columbians are looking for — in particular rural British Columbians, who are most directly impacted by the collapse of the forest industry — is for a leadership that's different than simply expressions of sentiment. They're looking for some actions, for some answers. What we have seen over the past eight, eight-and-a-half years are consistent expressions of sentiment, expressions of promise and then the realities that are consistently, completely different, that turn out to be failures.

In 2001, and I'll just read from the New Era document…. It's an interesting read. If anybody goes back to the New Era document, sees what was promised and compares it to the reality that we face here in British Columbia now, you'll see that it's not just 2009 where pre-election promises are made and broken; it's a pattern that goes back to 2001.

From that document, that B.C. Liberal platform in 2001, we had a promise from the Premier to make a leading-edge forest industry that's globally recognized for its environmental stewardship — a talk about the forest industry being strong with a bright future for forest workers.

Well, there are 25,000 fewer of those forest workers since that new-era promise — 25,000 fewer. Dozens and dozens of mills shut.

[1445]

You have value-added basically collapsing. You have workers abandoned. You have communities abandoned. You have safety degraded in the woods. You have environmental degradation. You have waste left on the floor. It's described as waste, but it's usable — but a buildup of waste.

All of that…. What the minister and this government have to put in front of us is this two-page communication strategy where there's a sentimental attachment to wood, where the minister may or might consider or should advise to do something with wood. It is hardly something that's going to inspire confidence in communities and with workers that are looking for some sign of leadership from this government. It has been absent over the past eight or nine years.

There has been study after study, with precious little that has come to show for it. We had $1 million spent on a round table that finished a long time ago, and what do we have to show for it? Two pages with a sentiment about: it'd be great to use wood.

Well, it would be wonderful to use wood. We all agree that it's a wonderful product. This building and this room highlight the beauty of wood and its functionality. But that is not going to solve any of the very serious issues that are out there for British Columbians.

I think what's clear is that British Columbians are looking for a leadership that addresses a number of issues that forest communities and forest workers want addressed. There should be bills in front of this House, and there should be activity from this government that deals with the very serious problems facing workers right now.

We have lost 25,000 family-supporting jobs, and these are people that are…. If you come from a rural community, they are our friends; they are our neighbours. They're people that we would play hockey with. They are often relatives. So we see, in rural communities, the impact of an industry that is facing difficult times.

We would expect that instead of a bill like this, we would have real action in terms of supporting those people who have contributed so much to the wealth of this province, contributed incredible amounts of money.

There was a time when you would look at a budget from a government in B.C., and you would see a forest industry that contributed over a billion dollars. If you go back before this government, you'll see figures of $1.4 billion in revenue from the forest industry.

What do we see now? We see a forest industry that cannot even pay for the Ministry of Forests. For the first time ever, the Ministry of Forests is losing money. B.C. Timber Sales — losing money. And workers idle when they should be working.

What you would look for is…. Instead of something like this, you would look for action from a government, for leadership that would say: "We value the workers that have provided the wealth. We will keep that workforce looked after. We will make sure that there is an industrial infrastructure when markets improve."

Instead of that, instead of any assistance for workers, what do we have? We have nothing. The federal government put in $129 million. We asked repeatedly, on this side of the House, for the provincial government to match that, to do something for workers, to show some initiative, and we got nothing — not a penny for workers. Not a penny.

What do we have? We now have a Wood First Act, Bill 9, which, instead of any support for workers, is going to have the minister — "perhaps, maybe, if I have to" — recommend how to use wood.

Even within the bill it says that it is going to require…. But it doesn't. So the purpose doesn't even match the sections that follow that would somehow make wood necessary for the building of institutions.

You also have all of the capacity that this government has allowed to slip away. With the 2003 revitalization strategy, there was a promise from this government that

[ Page 1049 ]

you would create jobs, that by giving the companies exactly what they wanted — companies that, by the way, are huge donors to the B.C. Liberals….

[1450]

Give them exactly what they wanted. The promise was that the public good that would flow from it would be jobs, community stability. Instead, what do we have? We have over 40, 50 milling operations that are either shut down permanently or for an extended period, or have been shut down and taken into pieces.

We have lost unprecedented capacity. In 2003 we got rid of appurtenance, the requirement of the old social contract where the forest that was around a community, that the community had a connection with…. There was an old social contract that went back to the time of the Social Credit with W.A.C. Bennett — that idea that you would mill in an area that produced the wood. It was a social contract that people appreciated in rural British Columbia, and it pointed to a strategy.

It pointed to a government that took forestry seriously and tried to sit down and think and figure out what the industry would look like, where forestry was an important part of what a government would think about. But it's not anything that has been on the front of the mind or as a priority for this government or for this Premier. It is whatever the companies asked for, and what the companies came and asked for was that they wanted to get rid of appurtenance. "Okay, fine. It's given."

Is there any thought to the impacts or how that's going to affect communities, how it's going to affect workers? Precious little. The impacts that have followed speak to the failure of that policy. It hasn't produced jobs. It hasn't increased the number of mills. It's led to their closure, and what we have is, as an example of a strategy, Bill 9.

So Social Credit, NDP — times when forestry was taken seriously — you had legislation that was real, legislation that looked to find solutions. What do we get here? We get this, as I said, Bill 9, which is more of a communications, sentimental act rather than any real act — anything that's going to make any difference on the ground at all.

With the revitalization strategy the companies were able to get de facto control over much of the public lands. You had no ministerial approval for oversight of sales and ownership changes. You got rid of the automatic 5 percent takeback on cuts on transfers. You had the ability for TFLs to be subdivided, and you had a payment of $250 million to create B.C. Timber Sales, which this year is losing money. You had a replacement to the Forest Practices Code with a self-regulating setup that companies themselves report on how they're doing.

Is it any wonder that we've had environmental degradation? Is it any wonder that forest, public land, is left with a huge amount of waste on the ground? An interesting figure for people, and it's one that, if you go to Ben Parfitt…. He supplied a report on it.

If people are wondering just how efficiently we use the wood in the forest now, the B.C. Liberals changed, in that revitalization plan, the requirement that went back an extended period of time to actually take marketable logs out of the forest. These are logs that could be used for pulp. They could be used as sawlogs. But the companies didn't want to do that, and this government agreed with those that donated to them and said, "Okay, fine; we'll put in place take or pay," and allowed the companies to pay a nominal fee to leave perfectly good wood in the forest.

Now, does this bill go to address any of those concerns? If you took the wood that was left in the forest over the past five years in British Columbia and put those logs on logging trucks and lined those logging trucks up, they would stretch from here, at the steps of Victoria, all the way across to Halifax and back. That's how much wood is being left in British Columbia forests and not used — not used to produce jobs. Left to rot.

[1455]

That goes back to decisions made in this House by B.C. Liberals in 2003 when they gave the companies exactly what they wanted with no consideration of what the public good is.

What benefits do we want from public lands? When you have a minister that understands problems like that and a government that is constantly told that these problems exist, you would expect some action. I think most British Columbians, when they look to their forest and they see the opportunities that are there, especially if they come from a rural community where they see the difficulties that families are facing in the collapse of the forest industry, there's some expectation that a government would pay attention and put together a strategy that would actually assist in creating jobs.

But is there anything done with the waste? There is nothing. Is there regulatory change that might force the wood to be brought in and used? No, the government doesn't want to do that because their donors don't want them to do that. Even if you just went to a marketplace solution and made it so that there was a cost to leaving the wood there through a carbon tax — put a carbon tax on the wood that's left there, make it a cost — then you would have the wood come out and be put to some use.

Instead it's left there. It's wasted, and it is left, with problems created for forest fire management and a whole host of other issues.

So you would expect that instead of Bill 9, instead of a bill that is essentially fluff, you would expect some sign that there is a strategy that has some hope of success, but it's not happening. You would expect that a government would deal with other forestry issues that have been put forward again and again as things that need to be dealt with.

There have been no shortage of reports done for this government. It's their way of delaying any sort of decision. One report goes back to 2008. An Auditor General

[ Page 1050 ]

looked at safety — and he's not the first. There are many coroners' reports that look at forest worker safety. And there were recommendations about how to make the forest safer. Do we see legislation or regulations from this government that actually deal with those issues? Year after year it's ignored, despite the Auditor General being clear that work needed to be done.

The government actually is cited by the Auditor General: "Leadership for making safety a prominent government priority is lacking." That is as clear as an Auditor General can get that there is a failure of leadership. As you look at initiative after initiative with B.C. Liberal forest policy, that's what you see. You see a failure of leadership; a failure of interest; a failure to protect the environment; a failure to protect workers, their economic well-being, their safety. All of those are compromised consistently and repeatedly.

The government's total focus in forest policy is to try to get the majority of the population that is somehow detached from forestry to believe that they are actually doing something. With this feel-good bill, that's part of the attempt. It will accomplish very little. It will not require B.C. wood to be used. It doesn't actually require wood to be used. It says the minister "may" encourage. Like I say, it's a sentiment that we would all share. You can't argue with the sentiment to celebrate the use of wood and to promote it. But as far as it being in any way a substantive forest policy, it is a complete and utter failure.

[1500]

There was a time, if you go back to the Social Credit, where we insisted that these companies were British Columbia companies and that the forests were to produce a public good — where the idea that we would take logs and we would send them offshore to be produced was something that we would try very hard not to do. Because we know that when you leave logs in the forest, you're wasting the opportunity for jobs. When you allow them to go offshore and to be exported as raw logs, you are essentially exporting jobs.

One would expect a strategy to try to make sure that instead of sending logs offshore, we would try to produce things here. We have no value-added strategy. We apparently have no interest at the B.C. Liberal government table to try to make sure that wood is actually used here.

So you have a B.C. Wood First Act where you're encouraging the use of wood, but where there is no requirement that it be B.C. wood. There's no interest in making sure that logs stay in British Columbia and actually produce jobs and produce a product that we can send to other parts of the world and use here. There's no commitment even to the land that we had set aside for forestry.

Here on the Island but also in the Interior…. Certainly Port Alberni was the first example, but you have it around here also. You had agreements that would take areas of private land, the

schedule A lands, and you would have those lands in TFLs with large areas of public land. That was supposed to be something that would be in place in perpetuity producing logs, producing jobs.

What this government did, for reasons that are beyond comprehension…. They allowed those private lands to be separated, despite all of the benefits that were given to the companies for decades and decades. They have allowed them to be separated and be sold off essentially as real estate — a huge benefit with the promise, from the minister at that time responsible, of some jobs.

In fact, thousands of jobs, I think, were promised. None of them have been produced. It is a massive giveaway and consistent with a pattern of giveaways to major donors, with no public benefit — absolutely no public benefit. It's not just me who has reached that conclusion.

The Auditor General reached that conclusion. The Auditor General did a report there and was absolutely clear that the giveaway of land to these companies, the breaking up of the TFLs, was not in the public interest.

We consistently see, since 2001, despite a promise to reinvigorate the forest industry, that workers are abandoned. Their safety is compromised. The land that should be producing forests for the future and that all people should have access to and share the benefit from — that's given away.

You look for any sign of a strategy that's going to work. All that we are given is essentially a bill that is going to somehow say something nice about wood. It is such a failure of leadership. That's what you hear again and again as you travel from communities to communities where mills are down and where workers and communities are looking for leadership.

What you see is…. You're asked again and again: "Where's the leadership?" Honestly, if people were to look, if those communities were to look at what is going on in this House and see the reaction to this ongoing crisis in forestry…. This is the plan the government has?

I mean, it would be pretty disappointing. This is what a million dollars gets you. We spent a million dollars with the forestry round table. So far, what do we have from it? We have an expression that wood is great. We don't need a law to realize that wood is a useful product for construction. We shouldn't need a law for us to promote the use of wood in buildings. This building is not new, but they used wood here. They celebrated it. We can see that, and it's beautiful.

[1505]

The school that the minister referred to being built out of wood — well, it didn't have the Wood First Act. It was still built out of wood, and it may even have been built in the 1990s. You know, you don't need a law to realize that wood is a great product to build houses out of. I live in a wood house — quite happy with that. I think most of us do.

[ Page 1051 ]

The other areas where people are looking for leadership and would expect more than this are areas around forest health, around not only the pine beetle but the wide range of forest health issues that are out there. People are looking for leadership in silviculture. They recognize that, despite all of the talk, there really has not been, in any way, a coordinated mountain pine beetle strategy.

In 2001 the Premier declared war on the pine beetle. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Forests surrendered on that file, said that we'd lost. Well, it's not a surprise to anyone. The fact of the matter is that it was always going to be a challenge. It was a challenge that needed to be met. Any idea that we actually attempted to deal with the issue in a meaningful way is simply not accurate. We have not done the work that we need to.

We have a need for leadership to make sure that the areas are replanted, that the industry is given some security. None of those things have happened. There is no mountain pine beetle strategy that has really been proven effective.

We have allowed the total destruction of our value-added sector. We have lost over 60 value-added companies. Most would say that before 2001, certainly, the initiative that was being put forward was to make sure that we made full use of the resource that was there for us. That's no longer happening.

The sentiment in this bill is one that everyone agrees with. The sentiment is all that is there, but it is one that everyone agrees with. Wood is an incredibly important product. It is excellent for construction, not only as a part of the framing and the engineering of a building, but it is a beautiful product. It is one that has a long history.

There was a time when the forest industry would provide good, family-supporting jobs in this province. That time has, for the time being, passed. Will it in the future? Yes, it will.

For that to happen there has to be leadership. There have to be ideas that are real. They have to be ideas that are substantive, more than simply communication strategies. They have to be ideas that are going to involve a public good and involve the public in providing the solution.

We have in our communities tremendous expertise. We have in our communities ideas about how to get more from the land base, how to improve the industry. We have those ideas.

But what we see is a government that is far more interested in doing exactly what their corporate donors want rather than doing what's best for the industry.

Deputy Speaker: Forgive the interruption, Member. Are you the designated speaker?

N. Macdonald: Yes, I am.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The minister asks if I would go on for two hours. I'd be happy to do that for the minister. I always enjoy….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: The Minister of Forests wants to make it clear that it wasn't him that was asking for that. It's the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

So there's no question that the sentiment is there, the sentiment that we all agree with, but there has to be more. There has to be a strategy that is going to work for our communities and strategies that are going to make sure that there is stability and that we get the industrial jobs back that we need and get people back into the forest, doing the forest health work that's needed.

[1510]

There is so much to be done, but what it takes is an investment and a recognition that these public lands are there for the public good and that if we are going to be serious about making sure that we leave a legacy for future generations, we have to come up with a strategy that will last not only through a communications cycle, but is real and will be something that sets us up for decades to come.

With every challenge — and there's no question there are challenges with markets — there are opportunities. There are opportunities to look at different markets. Some of that is happening. There are opportunities to redefine how we use the land base. There are opportunities to reposition an industry for decades to come. That is not happening.

Those ideas are there. They sit with expertise around the province. There are people who have many ideas about how to move forward. What this government needs to do is to take the expertise that exists within the ministry, to take the expertise that sits in the province, and to put together a strategy that is going to be real and a strategy that is going to work.

I know that there are a number of members of the NDP caucus that want an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is an issue, an area of tremendous importance to all British Columbians, but it is one that is especially felt by those that live in rural communities.

As I say, we have people that have worked in the industry and have spent their life in the industry. The next speaker, unless there is a B.C. Liberal that is going to stand up and speak to this bill, is my co-critic, who has spent 30 years in the industry, who knows the importance of the industry and the need for a strategy that is going to provide the jobs, the economic benefits, and

[ Page 1052 ]

who values tremendously the public lands that surround our communities.

We also have a rural caucus that shares ideas around forest strategy and forest issues.

I'd like to draw to a close. Bill 9, the Wood First Act, is

an act which, as I've said many times, is really an expression of sentiment. It doesn't accomplish the things that we need to accomplish in British Columbia. This is not to be confused with a forestry strategy. It is a communication strategy.

The sentiment is appealing. The use of wood, we support. But what we would be looking for is some sign that the B.C. Liberals understand the incredible mistakes that they have made over the past eight years and the damage that they have done to families and communities in abandoning a sector, in abandoning forestry — a sector that I think and many would agree was fundamentally important in the building of this province.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

B. Routley: I very much enjoy working with Norm on this file. It is indeed a sad thing to realize that the best that this government has to offer, the very best that they can come up with, is a plan to…. It's really window dressing. It's a plan to talk about wood first in British Columbia.

Well, a while ago I think the same government was talking about: "Well, in maybe five storeys we should have a lot of wood." Again, it's motherhood and apple pie.

Coming from the forest industry, of course I want to see wood utilized, and that's a no-brainer. Will this actually result in jobs in communities? Is this going to really put people back to work in mills? The answer is no.

[1515]

This minister knows that. He's been telling the people of British Columbia about mill closures because of the devastating impact of the pine beetle and what's been going on in the economy — the lack of an aggressive plan to do value-added. The best that this government seems to….

Instead of having Wood First, we could actually show that we cared about wood first in British Columbia if we had a plan to make sure that the forest products — some of the best-quality products that we produce — instead of being exported across the line, were actually to be maintained here in British Columbia to create value-added products.

Where does the minister think that those products are going? You know, I had the privilege to sit down in one of these groups that were running around the communities from the Liberal government at one point, and I asked the question: "Well, where…? Those logs aren't just going somewhere and disappearing into thin air. Somebody is running them through either a mill or a value-added plant, and they're creating employment."

Have we examined…? Has anybody taken the time to go over and examine how it is that a company like Interfor, one of the three amigos that this government will remember…? When they capitulated to the corporate agenda and basically gave them everything that they wanted back in 2003, we were promised then that it was going to be a new day and that because of this government's actions there was going to be real employment and real prosperity. After all, they were creating…. They got rid of all the private lands out of tree farm licences. They made private land–like rights in our tree farm licences and basically gave the industry everything they wanted.

At the end of the day, companies like Interfor shut down mills in British Columbia — first one, then another, then another — and when they got money back in the softwood lumber deal, do you think they spent any of that money on investing in British Columbia, as was promised? It was promised by this government, and their representatives were running around, and they were promoting this wonderful plan that was going to come about. All the CEOs were promising they were going to invest in British Columbia.

Did they invest? No. The reality is that at the end of the day they shut mills down, and this government sat on the sidelines. They'd basically given away the toolkit, Madam Speaker.

In the past, when governments had appurtenancy, when they had the ability to tie our wood to our mills and to our communities throughout British Columbia, when there was a true public process, the government of British Columbia would put out to the public, "Here's what we're thinking about doing," and the public had real consultation.

All those processes just got thrown in the garbage. They've been thrown in the shredder in the same ministry of delete whose office I can't find. They're gone somewhere; I have no idea where — all of those good ideas of connecting communities, caring about communities and caring about workers. There was no plan whatsoever put in place by this government to protect the interests of British Columbians and B.C. communities while they were busy unbolting and disconnecting the public connectivity, the public connection to our forest.

You know, I talked to forest workers who said: "Surely this government must have some plan. They must have gotten commitments or real agreements that there was going to be actual investment." When the CEOs went running around to communities, people talked about it in the lunch rooms, and they said: "Well, maybe this is really going to happen. Maybe this government has some kind of plan and knows what they're doing."

[ Page 1053 ]

The results? At the end of the day no plan, no connection, no promises, no agreement. This government has no problem sitting down with the federal government behind closed doors and cutting a deal without the people of British Columbia knowing. They have no problem sitting down with some P3 partner and cutting some deal to give away another asset of British Columbia.

[1520]

They have no problem doing that kind of thing, but where is the interest of this government in taking care of the actual working people throughout British Columbia and taking care of communities throughout British Columbia? Where is the action?

You know, just wonderful fluff and window dressing is what this comes down to. I mean, come on. How many buildings do we really expect are going to be built under the building codes in communities all over British Columbia, and how much money, in the middle of all of these cuts, do we expect this government's going to be spending on building six-storey buildings with wood? It's just more nice words.

By the way, some of the other folks…. If you were from the steel or glass or cement industries…. They're interested in hearing from the government. Is next year their turn? We're going to have glass-first year, and then we're going to have cement-first year after that. Kind of a rotating door, and everybody can be first.

But there's no real plan of action involved here in talking about wood first. It sounds nice to say. We're filling up some time here in the Legislature, spinning our wheels yet again with more jiggery-pokery by this government.

Jiggery-pokery — that's my mother's favourite word again. I get to use it again. I dearly love the opportunity to use my mother's favourite word, jiggery-pokery. I've never seen the likes of it. Almost every day there's a new opportunity to talk about jiggery-pokery here in this place.

What's going on is that this government….

Interjection.

B. Routley: I hear there are lots of cheerleaders over there that are cheering me on. They're excited.

Finally, they've come awake. They've heard some truth being spoken in this place, and they're interested. They want to carry on some discussion about Wood First because they're going to be doing all these wonderful things to take care of the people of British Columbia. Somehow they want us to believe a myth that we're going to have mills open up all over British Columbia because this government has opened up Wood First.

You know what's amazing? This is a true story. I know some brothers that phoned up Western Forest Products, and they wanted to know if they could buy some wood to build some of their own buildings. You know, you can't buy wood. They tell you to go through one of these big wholesale outfits like Home Depot.

You know what's alarming? You go into Home Depot in downtown Duncan in the Cowichan Valley, and there are products from all over the world.

This minister is promoting a wood-first plan, but please note that there is no mention of the word "B.C." There is no mention of the words "B.C. communities." There's no mention about B.C. workers and their families, who are desperately looking for help from this government — just more words, more verbal diarrhea about the kind of thing that they're going to produce, some kind of wonderful plan that's going nowhere. It's a plan that goes nowhere — to talk about a new strategy.

We've had a long list. Back in 2001 we had the new era of sustainable forestry. Where did that lead? More mill closures and shutdowns. Then in 2003 we had the so-called forest revitalization plan. Well, we haven't found anything that needed revitalizing.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Maybe the minister saw some of those mills going down, and he was going to somehow go mouth to mouth and give them resuscitation. But you know what? They didn't do that either. At the end of the day, those mills — mill after mill after mill — closed. Community after community abandoned.

I was shocked when I went up to Mackenzie. With my friend there, we met with some of the locals in the largest hotel in Mackenzie. In fact, just down the hall Mr. Bell has an office. There's nobody there, other than some poor lady, probably cleaning cobwebs. At the end of the day, we went into that hotel, and it was empty.

[1525]

Deputy Speaker: Member, one moment.

Hon. P. Bell: We've heard this member a couple of times use other members' names. I'd just ask you to remind him about the appropriate decorum.

Deputy Speaker: Absolutely.

B. Routley: Okay, Madam Speaker. I'm working on remembering "Minister of Forests," and I do need to shine that up a bit. "Brother" is far too kind. I take that back. Brothers and sisters, while we might fight and argue, at the end of the day you can get somewhere. But the bottom line here, I'm learning, is that they have no interest in listening to this side of the House — none whatsoever — even when we put forward some good ideas.

[ Page 1054 ]

For example, let's talk about log exports. This minister says he's interested, so I'm going to give it another Boy Scout try to talk about how we could avert some log exports. This would keep wood first in British Columbia.

I talked to mill managers in my travels who said that one of the problems with log exports is that if they buy 40 percent of their wood from one company and 40 percent of their wood from another company and for that last 20 percent they want to block the export of raw logs, what happens is that when they try to block the export of raw logs, they get a phone call from that log company that's exporting the logs, and they get told: "No, no. If you block that sale, we're going to discontinue providing you with that 40 percent that we did the year before."

There's an example, and this is a real case — the sawmill in Nanaimo where I had the manager sit down with me before it closed. He explained that one of the problems was that they weren't able to get real access to the wood because there wasn't what he referred to as like a double-blind process. And so I'm glad the minister is here for this. The opportunity is there. If we're really serious to look at a double-blind kind of process where we say to the….

If the government had a will to, they could introduce the idea of providing logs on the export market that weren't tagged and marked with a company name, locate them in a place that wasn't directly associated with any company and, just like I saw in Japan, allow anybody to come down, walk those logs and buy a few logs here or there if they want — buy the whole boom if they want, if they want to put a bid on it.

It's a blind process. The buyer and seller don't see each other. There would have to be an intermediary to ensure that, at the end of the day, there can't be any of this…. These aren't my words. One of the mill managers said that it's kind of a blackmail that he felt, being phoned up and told: "No, no. Don't you bid on that."

The same thing with a value-added producer. I had an operation called Fantax in Parksville that was wanting yellow cedar wood from Macmillan Bloedel. For a while they were getting supplied all the yellow cedar they wanted. And then one day the call came through to that poor little mill, and they said: "You're done. No more wood from that company." And they phoned me up and said: "Well, what do we do?" I said, "Well, I can make a few calls," but the answer I got back was: "No, no. We've decided we need all of the wood."

So even though you had an operation providing employment, the reality is that in British Columbia we have corporate concentration so badly as a result of the actions of this government that there is almost unilateral control by a handful of players in our total forest industry in British Columbia — by a handful of major, major companies. It's indeed a sad state of affairs.

Then I want to talk about making wood first for the future of British Columbia. I'm concerned about the forest health in British Columbia, because I've talked to professional foresters. I've talked to people that are out in the field, actually planting trees.

[1530]

You know what they tell me? We’ve got to question the minister about this. There are 14 million hectares or more in some state of forest health problem.

It can be anywhere, as the minister puts it, from some kind of trace health issue to a very serious issue where those hectares are virtually down and out for the count, and they're falling down. All over the province we've got huge volumes of dead and dying wood in those pine forests. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen.

We're going to have a day come where there's more…. The minister knows this is correct. I'm sure that he does, that he wouldn't disagree. Next year there are going to be more lightning strikes, and if they hit in the wrong place, we're going to light up like a candle because we have this dead and dying wood in these pine forests that are getting more decayed by the day.

There's no bioenergy plan. When we were out in the field, I talked to a logging manager who said that he would like to supply…. He said that he could supply a local community business, a small business, with a few truckloads every day, and they could make pellets. I'm only talking about a couple of employees here. This isn't big business, but this is an example.

He said that he was prepared to give it away, and the company had already paid for it, for the billing of it. At the end of the day, he was told that the Ministry of Forests wouldn't allow him to do it. Couldn't even give it away. And those are the kinds….

Why are there roadblocks like that? All these mountains full of wood waste, and there seems to be just bureaucratic bungling and seems to be no approach to come up with resolutions that are going to be meaningful and actually provide serious opportunities for people to get engaged in looking at bioenergy.

There are small projects. We were in Kamloops, and we saw that Nexterra has a plant there that's generating. Instead of natural gas, they're using waste wood to provide energy for the dryer to dry plywood. That's a good thing, but that's kind of a one-off project. I believe there was both federal and provincial money that helped that, kind of an experimental thing. Again, it's good news. The company is reporting that over a three-year period it essentially paid for itself, and in an ongoing way it's providing real energy.

I'm hearing there are little bits and pieces. In fact, I hear that Tofino, of all places, is looking at using waste wood to generate energy. There is a tremendous opportunity for…. When I think about putting people to work, if there were a real serious plan and everybody got in the

[ Page 1055 ]

room and they let their hair down, so to speak…. And I don't mean….

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yeah, I'm not picking on anybody.

But if they let their hair down and they said, "Look, let's figure this out. Let's work together...." If you had these foresters and you had these logging and sawmilling managers, and you had looked at the wood waste issue, and you said: "How can we work together...?" There ought to be a real attempt. I know that they had their round-table thing, and I'm sure there were a few good ideas that came out of there.

Again, the industry is desperate to see action. The forest workers and forest communities that we talked to everywhere we went said the same thing. It was the same thing. What they said was: "Wood might be first in the minds of this government, but for communities and for workers, they feel they're dead last."

They are dead last. You go into the community hall, and they say: "Here we are, sitting in Port Alberni, looking at the trees all the way around." The mayor says: "We got no say, none whatsoever, about what's going on in our community." The workers in the mills say: "We got no say."

They take 20 percent of the land base away. One of the last goofy plans that they come up with was taking 20 percent away from every forest company in the province, and that put out of work thousands of actual family-supporting workers — thousands.

[1535]

We're still waiting for some of that wood to be reallocated. I hear that they dribbled it out in little bits and pieces. It's so uneconomic that…. For example, first nations get a 30,000-cubic-metre block here and 50,000 over there. I'm told by contractors like Hayes, who know what they're talking about, that you've got to have at least 300,000 cubic metres of wood a year to make an economical operation, and at a minimum 150,000 if you're a small stump-to-dump contractor. And they're letting out little bits and pieces.

They're really at the hands and the mercy of some gypsy contractors that may come in from out of town — who knows where — but it's not supplying community-supporting jobs like it used to do. That's the tragedy.

Wood might be first in the minds of this minister. It's all window dressing. It's all fluff. By the way, I remind you again: it's Wood First, but there's nothing about people first — not the people of British Columbia and certainly not any connection to B.C. There's not even a word about: "It's going to be there. This wood is going to get supplied for British Columbians to create jobs for British Columbians that are suffering."

There are value-added opportunities. I went to a value-added forum, I remember, several years ago, and I heard from value-added producers that one of the issues was wood supply — getting a supply of the very wood that they need. Often it's even wood from mills that they've got sitting there.

I got a phone call from a remanufacturer — again, a true story. A remanufacturer in Nanaimo phoned me up and said: "There are millions of feet sitting on the dock, and I just want to be able to buy some of it so I can reman it into a product that I can sell. What I'm getting back from the company is: 'Oh well, even though it's all sitting there going mouldy, we might want to sell it to some customer some day.'" What the truth was, was that they weren't interested in having somebody else buy it that's going to make a buck.

When I phoned the CEO, it was real interesting. This is the kind of thing that real union leaders that care about workers and communities do. I talked to that small company. I heard his concern. I phoned the CEO, and I basically said to him: "Look, you can help us out here. There are people that need employment." He ended up coughing up about three million feet that actually helped put people to work.

It's unfortunate that you have to do those kinds of things and try to work things out. But we have to do that. There has to be more discussion with all the different groups and, certainly, with communities. When you hear what communities are saying to me….

Along with the problems of forest health…. I've talked to a number of foresters that are beating the same drum. I'm not making this stuff up. That's what these professional foresters are telling me. I have no interest in coming up with something that they're not telling me. They're telling me that this government has not done an adequate inventory.

So if wood is first, where is the attempt by this government to do a proper inventory? If wood is first, if wood is so important, we ought to be taking the time to put wood first and actually go out there and make sure we've got an inventory so that we can have good health in our forests.

Isn't that important? How can we make annual allowable cut predictions into the future if we don't know what we have? How can we possibly make accurate predictions? We're hearing about forest health issues, like the weevil that's moving in next door to dead pine and killing second-growth stands.

We asked for the information the other day. It was in estimates, and I'm told it's almost like question period. They don't call it answer period, because there are no answers coming. I found that out. I might be green. It took me awhile to figure that out — that there'd be no answers coming. But I'm starting to figure it out, that it's not answer period at all.

[1540]

When we were looking for answers, there were none forthcoming on the issues of where on earth we are

[ Page 1056 ]

in terms of dealing with the forest health issues in the province of British Columbia.

If wood is truly first, shouldn't we know the exact state of our forest health? Don't we need to know what second-growth stands are dead and dying and need desperate action taken immediately?

I see such a missed opportunity. It just breaks my heart to see community after community desperate to have action done to prevent wildfire and the interface situation that we could end up with. There's a real opportunity to put these laid-off forest workers and their families and have them do something meaningful. Because guess what. We're going to need a qualified workforce in the future.

I actually heard contractors who say they're worried when the markets do turn around, and we know they can turn around quickly. If they turn around, where are they going to get the competent, qualified and trained and skilled workers?

If wood is truly first in the province of British Columbia, we ought to be making sure that if wood is really going to be on our minds, we're going to have the kind of qualified workers now and in the future. We could be doing some things to put them to work by protecting communities, going out there and doing the work that desperately needs to be done on forest health, on fire prevention.

You know, it's the same issue as when I was a safety chairman. How do you measure somebody's death that didn't happen? Well, the answer is that it's pretty hard. You don't know, because you've saved a life because you had a safety plan. You've got an aggressive plan of action to prevent accidents.

Well, you know, we've got forest health problems and forest fires and all these laid-off workers. It's a perfect fit to put people to work. We could have a real plan of action that's going to prevent…. We're talking millions of dollars. Think about the potential of losing a community or homes in the future.

I'm concerned there are liability issues for the province if we don't act now and if we don't act soon — both in the liability of we're not going to have the skilled workforce any longer…. We're going to lose…. We're losing, right now, whole communities. People that I've talked to that worked at the Nanaimo mill have packed up and moved to Alberta, and they're working in the tar sands.

I've talked to a third-generation heavy-duty mechanic. His grandfather and his father were heavy-duty mechanics. You know what he came to the front counter and said to me one day? He said: "I'm out of here. I got a job in construction. I'm not coming back." Another sad story is that he's off working on some project, some road to a ski resort, and that's going to end one day. All of a sudden the funding will be over and that gig will be done. I don't know where he's…. The family has turned into gypsies, and this is happening all over British Columbia.

I just want to finish up by saying that I do see the opportunity for a bright future in British Columbia. I really do, but there are some things that have to be done.

We need to get bright minds together. We need to formulate a plan of action to make use of the opportunities that do exist, whether it's waste wood and biofuels or potential bioenergy, making gasification plants, making new fuels — all of those things have to be aggressively addressed, and one of the things we're hearing in common is that they need wood supply.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to stand and add a few words to this debate around the Wood First Act. I just want to start by clarifying that the act allows the minister to set best practices. The act allows the minister to be able to promote the utilization of our wood products in construction, particularly in the buildings that we are involved in, in terms of provincial funding.

[1545]

Just in response, though, to what some of the members opposite have just said, particularly the member for Cowichan Valley. He just talked about jiggery-pokery. I have just heard so much that I would have to say that there's a definition in the library that says: "See member for Cowichan Valley."

The last half-hour of pontification that I've just heard….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

J. Rustad: The member opposite just said there is a bright future for forestry. There is tremendous potential for our forest industry in this province, and you know what? I've been here now…. This is going on my fifth year of being in this House. I would love just once to hear one idea from that side of the House to be able to support what we need to do with our forest industry.

The member opposite just talked about the potential for bioenergy and utilizing work for creating power and energy, and do you know what, Madam Speaker?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

J. Rustad: The members from the other side wanted a moratorium on it. We've been trying to promote the opportunity to utilize wood for power, for bioenergy. They just want to throw a complete stop on it. It was in their election platform. Now, maybe they've done a total reverse on their election platform. I don't know. That is possible.

[ Page 1057 ]

But Wood First is something that industry is saying is a great thing. We've heard leaders of the various forest companies say that it's about time now in our province that we are going to put the focus on taking our construction industry on the commercial side and start looking at trying to utilize wood. People like Dave McRae from FPInnovations and Forintek have said that this is a great initiative. It is a great opportunity to start the process of using wood in different ways in this province, to support our forest industry.

Things don't change overnight. It takes time. You need to set the groundwork, and you need to work it through the system. But we can become a showcase for what you can do with wood. There is so much potential that we can do in our province. When you look at some of the facilities that we have done in this province already and the type of wood that's there…. We're going to see in just a few months' time, when the Olympics are on, incredible showcases of what we can do with wood, because we have set a priority for utilizing wood in this province.

The member opposite talks about the pellet industry and the opportunity to create pellets and not having access to fibre. We are doing exactly the opposite of what that member is saying. We are making fibre available. There is incredible growth in the pellet industry just in my communities alone. In Burns Lake there are two pellet plants that are in the works. There's a new pellet plant being built in Vanderhoof. There's an existing pellet plant in Vanderhoof already. There's expansion of a pellet plant in Houston. The opportunities in pellets are phenomenal.

We are enabling that. We are creating volume opportunities. There are six first nations in Burns Lake that have come and approached the province and said: "We would like to partner on this." We're making wood available through that as an opportunity for them to partner in that.

There are many other examples of this all around the province. To sit here… For one of the members opposite to stand and say that there is nothing that's happening in the forest industry and that we are not utilizing our wood and our potential, is totally and completely wrong. If they would only stand up and go and maybe visit some of those facilities, go and see some of those opportunities that are happening in this province, they would understand what we are doing, and they would understand why a bill like this is so important for our forest industry and for the workers in this province for what it will do.

Another innovation around this is the wood innovation centre that will be going into Prince George. This is an opportunity once again to look at wood products differently. What can we do different? How can we promote and utilize our product in a much better way?

The member for Cowichan Valley is right about one thing. We do have a very bright future in the forest industry. Despite the challenges we are facing with the downturn in the world economy, with the pine beetle and other health issues that are facing us in this province today — despite all those things — I know that our forest industry is going to be competitive. I know that our forest industry is going to continue to be the backbone.

[1550]

I can tell you one thing that is going to help make it, and that is because we're on this side of the government, and we believe in the forest industry. That side has yet to come up with any ideas for the forest industry, which is why they're in opposition.

I'm very pleased to have had this opportunity to support this bill. I look forward to it passing, and I look forward to what this will do in the future for our forest industry.

B. Simpson: I believe that every MLA in this House has an obligation to the public to speak with integrity and to speak in a manner that reflects what actually happens. So I would give the member for Nechako Lakes the benefit of the doubt but suggest he goes back and looks at Hansard in a debate that he and I had in a private member's statement about the future of the forest industry.

It's clear. It's where we laid out the plan that we had made public in early 2007. So to suggest that the opposition has not put forward plans and has not done it in this Legislature is, unfortunately, incorrect. I'd suggest that he refresh his memory of that.

The second thing that I think is important is to remind everyone — the public and those who are in this House — that when we first came here in 2005 as a renewed opposition, with the permission of the Leader of the Opposition we approached the former Minister of Forests and said: "Let's depoliticize forestry. Let's take it out of the political domain because it is going to struggle. It is going to go into a deep recession. It is too important to us, to the province and to the people of British Columbia to let slide."

Let's not make it a political football. Let's work cooperatively together through one of the vehicles we have in this Legislature, which is an all-party standing committee properly constituted and given a mandate to go out and look at alternatives for the forest industry. We were rebuffed.

So it is the government sitting on that side that has prevented the opposition from playing a legitimate, constructive, deliberate role in preventing the catastrophe that has occurred to our number one sector in this province under their watch over the last eight years. The blame lies on that side for this not being a constructive debate.

[ Page 1058 ]

With respect to the bill itself, I understand the thinking behind it because I happen to live in a forestry town. I live in a town in the heart of the mountain pine beetle. I live in a town that has depended for generations on what is really the largest concentration of primary and secondary manufacturing, pulp manufacturing, per capita anywhere in the world.

A number of years ago — I was trying to reflect on when it happened, and I can't remember the exact date, but it was certainly in the last 15 years or so — a new RCMP building was built in Quesnel made of concrete and brick — and the furor that caused in a community that is a wood community. We've been the wood capital. We have our own wood-first policies. It created a backlash because it was taxpayer money — it was money paid by the industry; it was money paid by forest workers that came back into our community — and didn't use wood to build the building.

So I understand the thinking behind trying to make sure that we help the number one industry through tax dollars when we're going to engage in capital projects. There's a certain irony, I have to say, though, listening to the debate around this, particularly from the other side. In a time when we just came out of question period, pointing out the government is cutting capital funding to the school district and is regressing its financing on capital projects, we now finally get some kind of wood-first policy. There's a bit of irony in that.

As a principle, Wood First has some merits. Does it have to be legislated? I'm not so sure. In fact, the member for Nechako Lakes pointed out that the Olympics is going to be a place that we showcase wood, and that happened without a piece of legislation. What's the purpose of bringing it forward as a piece of legislation? I would suggest the following.

[1555]

The Premier has used the truck loggers convention for years as a place to go and make significant announcements about what he wants to do with forestry. It's a major economic file. For years he was able to make announcements about the direction he wanted to go on that made sure his political party's major funders were kept happy. That's really what was happening there.

Two years ago, in 2008, the Premier had nothing to offer. As I'll indicate here shortly, the government made a fundamental error in its choice for policy direction in 2003 that has made the current situation worse than it needed to be.

So in 2008 the Premier stands at the truck loggers convention, with all of the hype for his speech, and he announces a round table. Well, you could have heard a pin drop. All they were getting was a round table — a round table that was going to go out and, for at least a year, discuss what possibly could be done to help the industry.

Everybody saw it for what it was: an excuse not to act, an excuse not to take determined steps. Of course, because of how the room is seeded with individuals who support the government — cabinet ministers, etc. — people stood up and still gave it a standing ovation.

Fast-forward to 2009. The round table still hadn't reported out. The Premier has to stand up and say something, and he says two things. "We're going to put wood first." He actually made the group say, "Wood is good; wood is good," to a level that China could hear it and got everybody all jacked up.

He also made a statement that caused us difficulty with our Americans, who are constantly putting us under the microscope. He stood up and announced that he was doing a downward adjustment to stumpage on the coast to 50 percent, giving the American Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports all the ammunition they needed to say: "See, they're making administrative adjustments to stumpage." That's what got us in trouble heading into the election, put us under a microscope. That was really what the Premier announced.

Now, with the wood-first component, everybody in the room kind of went: "What's that all about?" I happened to speak on a panel afterwards, and I gave the truck loggers convention a little bit of advice and suggested that standing ovations for the Premier is kind of a weird positive feedback loop.

If you get nothing, and you still give a standing ovation, it gives the Premier everything he needs to come back and give you nothing year after year. The truck loggers have to actually rethink their relationship with this government and make sure that they're actually only applauding the government for real actions.

So Wood First comes into this House this fall. Will it do anything for the industry? Well, I think the proof in our contention — that it's going to do very little — is in the government's press release. For an economic announcement in that press release, there are no economic benefits that are announced — no mills that will open; no jobs created; no market share numbers.

There is no substance to the press release to suggest that even the current minister or the government believes that this is anything other than rhetoric, anything other than smoke and mirrors for a government that doesn't, quite frankly, know what to do to assist our forest-dependent communities, to address the needs of our workers and families and to get this industry back onto a track that it needs to be on.

As the minister admitted today again, the U.S. housing market is not going to rebound anytime soon, and that's what this government has actually defaulted this industry to. Let me speak to that for a few minutes, because that's really the rub here.

In 2003, when this government had a few years in power, they brought in the Forestry Revitalization Act. Now, that was a substantive piece of legislation. That

[ Page 1059 ]

wasn't fluff. That Forestry Revitalization Act was predicated on one premise and one premise alone, and that was that the future of the industry rested in a few large dimension-lumber mills that were high volume, high efficiency and cost-effective.

It was an effective abandonment of the coast, and you can see that in the fact that after the 2003 revitalization act, the government actually began to convert the most productive forest lands under public control into the private domain. They flipped the

schedule A so-called private lands out of public control, and those are now logged for log exports. It was a complete abandonment of the coast.

[1600]

The Interior reform was such that it allowed that industry to collapse down to a few major players who wanted to ride the U.S. housing bubble. That's what it was all designed to do — to give them the concentration they needed to do all of the restructuring that they needed to do, to make sure that they were cost-effective and were efficient, to ride the U.S. housing bubble. They bought the same illogic and irrationality that the mortgage owners down in the United States were buying — that that bubble was going to go on forever.

So from 2003 through to 2006 the forest industry under the Liberal government's control defaulted to a dimension lumber industry only. The value-added industry, as other members have pointed out, completely collapsed.

The land base was concentrated in the hands of the few — on the coast, one company effectively; in the Interior, four companies effectively. They started to eat up all of the wood in larger and larger dimension lumber mills, and they wanted to ride this bubble. But even that model didn't work, because as housing starts were going up, that form of industry started to lose money.

You just go back and look at their shareholder reports, and you time it in conjunction with the housing market collapse. We in British Columbia were losing money on this business model before the sub-prime mortgage collapse — before it, not after it. We lost mills, dozens of mills. We lost tens of thousands of jobs before the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the U.S. housing collapse, not after it.

After it, it only made matters worse, so just adding insult to injury. And of course, as others have pointed out, after it the government didn't know how to respond. They still only put federal money into any response to communities or to workers. They never knew how to respond.

Effectively, I would argue, they can't respond because they've changed the regulation to the benefit of a few large corporations. They can't do anything to reverse that without the major funders of their political party being very angry with them.

I know that anger firsthand, because I had to fight an election in which I was pitted against the major employer in my community and my riding. I stood my ground. I took my chances. We have agreed to disagree on the future of the forest industry, but it's one of the companies that has the corporate concentration. I believe we have a better business model for those folks. It doesn't require them to control the land base.

That's the context we're in, and what we're looking for from the government…. We just came out of estimates debate for forestry, and we canvassed a whole bunch of questions to see if the government actually had more substance to this. So we're on solid ground to say that there's not much more out there.

The bioenergy strategy is a bust. Again, the member from Nechako is dead wrong. We didn't talk about a moratorium on bioenergy or biomass. We talked about: stop selling off our public assets, particularly our public rivers, and start looking at public energy solutions. That's what we were talking about. To misconstrue that again, I believe, simply lacks integrity.

Is this a strategy? That's really the question we as opposition members have to ask ourselves. Does this reflect a strategy? Is there something underlining it? For the public who pays attention to this — and I know there are folks who do — the reason this piece of legislation is two pages is that effectively, it simply enables the minister to establish regulations.

Regulations are easy for the minister to adjust, easy for the government to adjust, but unfortunately, they are not a tra