British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003
20031216pm-Hansard-v19n8
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 8
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Tributes
Hubert Beyer
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Campbell
Introductions by Members
Statements (Standing Order 25 b )
Psychiatric emergency facility at Royal Jubilee Hospital
I. Chong
Youth violence
P. Wong
Reopening of Alpha Processing plant
R. Visser
Oral Questions
U.S. softwood lumber proposal
J. MacPhail
Hon. M. de Jong
Government spending on health care advertising
J. Kwan
Hon. C. Hansen
Harvest of beetle-damaged trees in North Thompson area
K. Krueger
Hon. M. de Jong
Government action on forest industry labour dispute
P. Nettleton
Hon. G. Campbell
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99)
Hon. G. Bruce
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Collins
Second Reading of Bills
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99)
Hon. G. Bruce
J. MacPhail
P. Nettleton
J. Kwan
D. Hayer
R. Harris
R. Visser
H. Long
G. Trumper
Hon. G. Bruce
Committee of the Whole House
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 99)
Hon. G. Bruce
J. MacPhail
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement
Act (Bill 99)
Royal Assent to Bills
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement
Act (Bill 99)
[ Page 8385 ]
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
[1405]
Tributes
HUBERT BEYER
MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to, I hope, bring
condolences from all of the legislative members in the passing of Hubert Beyer,
who was part of the British Columbia legislative press gallery for what seemed
like decades. I think it actually was decades.
Mr. Beyer
passed away on the weekend at the age of 68. Those of us who are from my class,
the class of '91, know Hubert very well, and those who are from classes prior to
that would remember him as well.
He always
took a unique point of view in reporting on the Legislature. He always took a
point of view that defended the communities outside of the large, urban
population areas. From what I understand from the family, he kept his spirits
bright right to the very end and kept a very sharply critical pencil there to
comment on the comings and goings of the Legislature.
Mr.
Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly in
asking you to send condolences to Mr. Beyer's family on our behalf.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you. So ordered.
Hon. G.
Campbell: It's unquestionable that Hubert Beyer made a major contribution to
public life in British Columbia. It's not unusual for those of us in this room
or who are actively involved in the precincts in Victoria to lose track of the
fact that what we do has huge impacts on people in each corner of this province
— from Fort Nelson to Creston, from Port Hardy to Abbotsford.
Hubert
Beyer was a man who constantly kept that in mind, constantly referred to a
fundamental set of values, which are Canadian values. As you know, he came here
from Germany. He was always proud of his heritage, but he was even more proud to
be a Canadian. He was even more proud to live in a country that encouraged
debate, that encouraged discussion and that reminded each citizen that they have
a role to play in public life — and that public life was a vital part of our
lives and a vital part of what defines our country.
In 1995
during the separatist vote, he personally bought a ticket to Quebec for the We
Love Canada rally. He wrote very passionately about how important that was and
what a meaningful day that was for him, as a Canadian, as someone who had come
to our country from Germany and someone who had been able to contribute.
So from
writing about local politics, municipal politics in Victoria, to the grand reach
of provincial politics to international responses to both Canada and the values
we all share, Hubert Beyer was a broadcaster in the best sense of the word. He
broadcast his values, and he was never afraid to tell us exactly what he
thought. I can remember a couple of times when Hubert took me out to lunch just
so he could explain what we should really be doing. I can tell you that he did
that with generosity and with a sense of commitment.
So to his
family — because at these times it's most difficult for families, particularly
at this time of year — to Eleanore, to his children Patricia, Charles and
Gary, to all of his family… I know that our hearts go out to them, our prayers
go out to them and our thanks go out to them, because they let Hubert Beyer
contribute as he did to public life in our great province. I know that we all
join in sending our best and our prayers to his family.
Introductions by Members
Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a childhood friend — a very young
fellow, of course. I knew him when we shared a class in elementary school. I
have a great many friends in the forest industry, but Lawrence Pillon, who went
to school with me as a child…. I don't see him as often these days, but it's
certainly great that he's able to join us here in the House. Lawrence Pillon —
would the House please make him welcome.
[1410]
Hon. G.
Plant: I am told that John and Iris Swystun are here from Saskatchewan, I
believe, visiting their daughter Corinne, who is a hard-working and diligent
legislative counsel in the Ministry of Attorney General — obviously another
product of a province that has produced an unbelievable number of great Canadian
lawyers and one amazing Minister of Finance. I hope the House will please make
the Swystuns welcome.
Hon. S.
Bond: Actually, today I would like to recognize someone in the chamber who
has reached a significant milestone. I think anytime someone is able to say they
are half a century old, it deserves recognition. Today I know you'll want to
join me in congratulating the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, who is
celebrating his nifty fiftieth birthday.
Hon. G.
Campbell: I'd just like to recognize someone who has made a major
contribution, certainly to our caucus and to me personally. Mike McDonald, our
director of communication, will be leaving for other opportunities, moving to a
new life. Mike started working with me back in 1992, when I was the mayor of the
city of Vancouver. He had been a legislative intern in 1992 as well, and he then
came and started working with me. He's been with our caucus since I came here, a
long time ago now. I'm glad he's seen new opportunities unfold before him. I
know he's looking forward to spending a lot more time with his daughter
Charlotte. I wish I could spend more time with Charlotte as well. I
[ Page 8386 ]
know all of us will want to give Mike our best. He's been a mentor; he's been
a friend; he's someone who's always been there for us. I know we all wish him
not just a great holiday season but a great future.
Hon. L.
Reid: I, too, would like to welcome to the precinct today Donna Clark. She's
visiting from Tsawwassen, British Columbia, and she's the finest aunt in the
world to my little girl Olivia. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY FACILITY
AT ROYAL JUBILEE HOSPITAL
Chong: Earlier today the Minister of State for Mental Health and the members
representing Saanich South, Victoria–Beacon Hill and Victoria-Hillside, along
with myself, attended a very important event at Victoria's Royal Jubilee
Hospital: the official groundbreaking of the psychiatric emergency facility.
This new $1.4 million psychiatric emergency care unit will be built for the
treatment of people suffering from mental health crises.
Many
people continue to speak out to raise awareness of mental illness and how it
affects our communities and our families. When in opposition, the Premier often
spoke about this issue. He made a commitment that, once elected, we would
revitalize the mental health system in our province and that mental health
issues would no longer be overshadowed by other health care demands.
Here in
Victoria many of us were touched by yet another painful event. In February 2000
Todd Thomas, the son of Donna and Peter Thomas, committed suicide in New York
City, where he had been suffering from a mental illness. Many of us know Donna,
a successful businesswoman and a hard-working community leader. The shock of
this tragedy left Donna in a daze. How would she deal with the pain? What
healing services were available? Why did this happen? Where does one go to
understand mental illness, and when will somebody do more for those suffering?
All these
questions motivated Donna towards a vision. That was to continue to raise
awareness about mental illness, to support a new care unit where those suffering
could seek help and be treated with dignity and respect, and to ensure that
something good came out of her personal loss. Donna understood the importance of
providing the appropriate care in an appropriate setting. She also understood
that one's emotional well-being can be greatly enhanced and improved by being in
a less stressful environment than a hospital emergency room.
[1415]
Through
Donna's generous initial donation, established well over a year ago, she
inspired others to step forward and to also raise funds that would improve
emergency mental health services in Victoria. The Courtnall Celebrity Classic
this past summer is just one example of that. Today Donna saw her vision and
idea become a reality at the groundbreaking ceremony. I know Donna and her
family will be there again next year to cut the ribbon at the opening of the
facility.
YOUTH VIOLENCE
P. Wong:
It is with sadness in my heart that I rise to speak in the House today. A
few weeks ago a promising young student, Jomar Lanot, was brutally killed at Sir
Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. People throughout the lower
mainland are concerned about this kind of brutal violence by our youth.
There is a
need in the community for people to feel safe, and it is our responsibility to
ensure that people do feel safe where they live and work. Schools have already
taken a leadership role with regard to the issue of youth violence and bullying.
We as a government have learned a great deal through the safe schools task
force.
But it is a
matter for the entire community. School is in session for seven hours a day and
five days a week. It is after school that the community needs to come together
to support our youth. Youth require special attention. It is a time in their
lives when they're exploring the world around them. They're trying out new
things, trying to find out where their boundaries are. They're learning new
ideas, new skills and how to cope with others in the world.
It is our
responsibility to ensure that we give them effective tools to deal with the
conflict and the realities of today's society. We must give them opportunities
to explore themselves and the world around them without resorting to violence.
We as parents and elders are the ones they look up to. We as parents need to
teach our children that violence is not the way to deal with conflict.
With
Christmas just ahead, I wish every British Columbian a safe and peaceful holiday
season and a violence-free 2004.
REOPENING OF
ALPHA PROCESSING PLANT
Visser: Last February I rose to speak about the strength and resiliency in
the dreams of the people of Port Hardy and the employees of Alpha Processing. It
was only days after, and they were sifting through the fire-ravaged remains of
the community's largest employer. I spoke about them coming together and about
them standing up for their community and for the way they make their living. I
spoke of their hope for the future and for their industry.
I have the
pleasure of standing here, nearly nine months to the day later, to tell this
House that the plant is now open again and the first of 175 women and men are
proudly back to work. Out of the ashes great things can rise. On Saturday the
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; company CEO, Keith Bulla; plant
manager, John Bielka; myself; and hundreds of community
[ Page 8387 ]
members cut the ribbon on what is now the largest and most sophisticated
processing facility for farmed salmon in North America.
Saturday
was a great day for Port Hardy and, I believe, for this province. It was a great
day because we were given a chance to behold a sense of pride and sheer joy on
folks' faces as they opened their place of work to their town. We were given a
chance to witness how much hope, opportunity and renewal mean to people. We were
given a chance to see that salmon aquaculture is really about people — real
people — in small communities who want to go to work and raise their families
in their own hometowns.
After
months of support and cooperation from Mayor Harry Mose and council and
alternate facilities from Keltic Seafoods, the new plant is open and sits
brightly shining across the bay from the community, reminding us all of the
future and of what can happen if you work hard, pull together and stand up for
what you believe in. I'm behind the people of Alpha Processing and this
industry. The minister is behind those people. The Premier is behind those
people, and this government is behind those people.
Merry
Christmas, Port Hardy, and thank you. You've all earned all of our respect.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER PROPOSAL
MacPhail: According to the Premier, 2003 was supposed to be the year of
forestry. Some year — thousands of forest workers out of work; communities in
crisis; the government's agenda adrift; a softwood lumber proposal from the
Americans that takes us backwards, especially for value-added producers.
[1420]
According
to the Vancouver Island Association Of Wood Processors, the proposal will mean
the end of specialty mills in B.C. and the jobs they provide — an end to them.
The
Minister of Forests has been very quiet about the American proposal. Will he
break his silence today and assure forest workers that he won't sign on a deal
that will drive the value-added sector out of business?
Hon. M.
de Jong: To the member: I'll tell her the same thing I said at what I was
told was the largest chamber of commerce breakfast meeting in Prince George's
history a few hours ago, and that is this.
We have a
proposal. We are studying that proposal. We are consulting with stakeholders
right across British Columbia, and we are discussing the terms of that proposal
with governments right across Canada. We have embarked upon a set of reforms in
British Columbia designed to revitalize British Columbia's number one industry.
We are going to continue with that, and we are going to ensure that no trade
deal represents an obstacle to doing what we set out as a government to do, and
that is revitalizing B.C.'s number one industry.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
MacPhail: My, those are soft words compared to what this minister said in
August of 2001, when he said in this House: "We're not in favour of a
return to a quota-based managed trade system." That was then. I remind the
minister that he said he wouldn't accept a deal on entrenched quotas. Not only
does the American proposal do just that, but the new quotas are worse than the
status quo.
British
Columbia value-added producers and forest workers are lining up against the
deal. Let me quote from the president of Seed Timber, a value-added producer in
Campbell River. "A quota will lock everyone into their current position
after two years of punishing duties. There will be no new entrants, no
expansion, no new capital and no new employment. Smaller companies will be
consumed for their quota."
Why not go
back to the words of August 2001? Rather than now just taking orders from big
forestry CEOs, will the Minister of Forests commit today to consult with
communities and value-added manufacturers who are saying this deal will kill
jobs, innovation and investment in forestry?
Hon. M.
de Jong: That's what we're doing. That's why I was in Nanaimo yesterday.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The minister listened to the
question. Let's listen to the answer.
Hon. M.
de Jong: That's why I was in Nanaimo yesterday. It's why I was in Prince
George earlier today. It's why I'm going to Kamloops tomorrow. It's why I'm
going to be in Cranbrook the day after that.
If the
member wants to turn this into some sort of a partisan debate, let me say this
to the member. Let me share with her….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M.
de Jong: Let me share with her what I think she is actually hearing but
chooses, for the purposes of this forum, not to share with members. There are
individuals, companies, within the value-added sector who are saying precisely
what that member has said.
MacPhail: Many of them.
Hon. M.
de Jong: Now we're agreeing, for God's sake, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 8388 ]
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon. M.
de Jong: They are saying precisely what this member has just relayed to the
House — that this is not a deal they would choose to embrace, and they don't
wish the government to do so. Then there are members of the value-added
community who are saying: "We need a deal. We're not crazy about this one,
but it will allow us to…."
MacPhail: Name them.
Hon. M.
de Jong: The member says: "Name one." Let's talk about Jackpine
resources, who haven't been shy about saying publicly that unless there is a
deal, they'll be putting people out of work. There is a price associated with
signing on to a proposal, but let us all understand this as well: there is a
price associated with walking away from that proposal. The undertaking we have
made as a government and that the Premier has made repeatedly is that we will
consider, first and foremost, the best interests of British Columbia and B.C.'s
number one industry before we sign on to any deal.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.
[1425]
MacPhail: In August of 2001 — two and a half years ago — this same
member, with great bravado, said: "We won't sign on to a quota-based
system." Then, also that same year, the Minister of Forests reassured
British Columbians that the softwood lumber dispute would be settled by
Christmas — Christmas 2001. Today he stands here and waffles again and again.
He promised
that his government's changes to forest policy would get a deal. He said that he
would take B.C.'s forest economy to great heights. Instead, he's taken it to the
edge of disaster, only to make the Americans happy. He promised new hope, new
jobs, more opportunity. He's delivered nothing, absolutely nothing, and he
continues today to deliver nothing.
Here's what
the general manager of Shawood Lumber in Langley said: "The value-added
sector cannot be expected to survive under this tentative a deal. The government
of B.C. has always talked about wanting to support the value-added sector. This
is your opportunity to stand up for us."
Will the
minister just stand up today for Shawood Lumber and every other value-added
producer, who are flooding us with letters here in British Columbia and who say
this deal will kill their businesses and the jobs they provide? Stand up and
support them today.
Hon. M.
de Jong: At the risk of again offending the member by showing some degree
of….
Interjection.
Hon. M.
de Jong: It's not just the value-added sector that has got problems with
this proposal. I don't know if she's chosen to be selective about who she's
listening….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M.
de Jong: You know, I hope this member understands that we're at a point
where we as a province have a pretty significant decision to make about a
proposal.
Interjection.
Hon. M.
de Jong: The member wants to put words in everyone's mouth, and she wants to
say one thing or the other, but the reality is this. We said to British
Columbians that we thought we owed the forest-dependent communities of British
Columbia a duty to go out and explore whether or not there was a negotiated
solution possible. We are in the process of actually trying to determine whether
the proposal that has emerged from those negotiations is one that is suitable
and worthy of acceptance.
You know
what, Mr. Speaker? It may be or it may not be, and we're in the process of
conducting a responsible consultation. If that is something that offends this
member — the very notion that we would actually go out and talk to the people
who are going to be impacted by this deal — it doesn't surprise me, because in
1996 they didn't talk to anyone. They just let the deal happen, and it offended
all kinds of people.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON
HEALTH CARE ADVERTISING
J. Kwan:
The Premier campaigned in the last election on a promise to never run television
ads telling British Columbians what a good job the government is doing on health
care — one more broken promise. The Minister of Health has refused to tell the
media how much the campaign is costing. In fact, he didn't tell anyone how much
the campaign was costing and, when it got started, was telling reporters instead
that they weren't asking the right questions. To the Minister of Health
Services: how much did the ads cost? What is he hiding?
Hon. C.
Hansen: There is a budget for communications in government that is vested
with the public affairs bureau, which is — I would remind the member —
significantly less than the budget for government communications that was in
place when she was in government and in cabinet.
Interjection.
[ Page 8389 ]
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Hansen: The commitment that we made to British Columbians is that we would
not engage in the kind of partisan political advertising that we saw from the
previous government. In fact, I recall one particular ad campaign that featured,
as the star actress in the ad, the current Leader of the Opposition, who at the
time was the Minister of Health.
As we go
around this province of British Columbia, we find individuals who are saying to
us: why are we not providing them…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Hon. C.
Hansen: …with some of the facts so that they can actually make up their
own mind for themselves as to what is happening in the health care system? So
we've gone out and have engaged in a communications process…
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Hansen: …to provide them with the facts. They can read those facts, they
can see them on television, and individuals can make up their minds for
themselves.
[1430]
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
If the minister wants to play games and not come out with how much it cost in
terms of the ads, let me just ask the Premier, then — the same Premier who
promised never to run ads…. It is clear from the television commercials and
the mailer that the Premier is distorting the facts in preparation for the
government's fight with the doctors. Why won't the Premier just tell us why he
has broken his promise not to run ads, and why won't he just come clean and tell
British Columbians how much those ads cost? What is he hiding, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I know that this member has been a member of this chamber for the
same period of time as I have, and I know, as well….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Order. We'll continue when we have order in the House.
Hon. C.
Hansen: I know that the member from Mount Pleasant was not listening to my
answer, so I'll start over. I know that the member from Mount Pleasant has been
a member of this chamber for as long as I have, since 1996.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Order.
Hon. C.
expenditures gets tabled. They get tabled in public accounts, and they can be
reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. That has been a tradition in this
chamber for many, many years. There is an opportunity for that member, or any
other member in this chamber, to review the expenditures of government at the
appropriate time. If the member would like to go back to the estimates blue book
that was tabled in this chamber last February, she will see the budget that's
been put aside for the public affairs bureau. She will find out that budget is
significantly less than it was when she was in cabinet and that we are making
sure those dollars get spent wisely to make sure that good, fact-based
information gets provided to the citizens of British Columbia.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
HARVEST OF BEETLE-DAMAGED TREES
IN NORTH THOMPSON AREA
Krueger: The Leader of the Opposition can prattle on all she likes about
forest issues, when her government did nothing but damage our forest industry in
their whole sorry decade in office. I have real constituents to represent, who
actually work in the forest industry and who have been very much negatively
affected by the Americans' behaviour and by other things that have happened —
for example, the damage that Mother Nature did in my constituency this summer,
the terrible forest fires, the devastation of the mountain pine beetle epidemic.
There is a
silver lining to all this. We have four million cubic metres of wood to be
brought out of the bush in the North Thompson Valley this winter and by June 30,
2004, before the beetles fly again. The need to harvest these logs and boost the
local economy has led me to seek a community salvage licence from the Minister
of Forests for the Barriere–Louis Creek area, and I would like an update from
the Minister of Forests for my constituents on our prospects with regard to that
application, please.
Hon. M.
de Jong: In fact, those discussions are proceeding, and they are obviously
enhanced by where we are in terms of the takeback provisions, the 20 percent in
those negotiations. I can say to this member, and will likely repeat in Kamloops
tomorrow when I'm there, that by the latter part of the spring of next year,
2004, we hope to be in a position to begin actually developing some of those and
implementing the community
[ Page 8390 ]
forest program and the expanded woodlot program. The member is quite right:
those new opportunities that the forest revitalization plan spoke to are now in
fact taking place on the ground. I for one am very pleased about it.
[1435]
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST
INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTE
Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, I'm not alone in the opinion that government
intervention not be part of the collective bargaining equation to be viewed as a
ready alternative in solving private industry disputes. This government,
however, is apparently creating an environment in which the collective
bargaining process can't work as intended. People are suspicious of a government
that's proven its desire to chip away at hard-won collective bargaining gains
and benefits in this province, a government that is intent on taking B.C. back
to a time when average working British Columbians had little or no benefits or
rights.
Can the
Premier reassure B.C.'s forestry workers that this is not the intent of this
pre-Christmas legislative action? And if not, how does the Premier see it
playing out?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I can tell the member that the reason the government is doing this
today is that in fact the union came to us and said they would request our help.
The FIR said that they would request our help. We felt there was a reason, in
fact, for us to work with both the union and the FIR. I think it was important,
when Mr. Haggard was at the announcement on Sunday that we would be bringing
people back, that he thanked the government for this task.
It's
important for us to know that this is about forest workers. It's about their
families. It's about their communities. When both labour and business come to us
and say, "Will government please assist us in coming to a resolution that
will protect jobs, that will encourage long-term competition in the
industry," I think it's important for government to respond.
[End
of question period.]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. G.
Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I move that Bill 99 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Mr. Speaker, right now a work stoppage in the coastal forest sector
is having a devastating effect on families and communities on Vancouver Island
and along the coast of British Columbia. It is also having an impact on the
province's reputation in international markets.
Last week
government met with representatives from Forest Industrial Relations and the IWA
to try to see if there was anything we could do to get the parties into
productive negotiations. We heard that to ensure long-term viability and to
support good jobs in the coastal forestry sector, a new collective agreement
needs to be in place.
We also
heard that neither group could restart bargaining on its own. The parties told
me that if this dispute continues into the new year, it could well last until
summer. We heard both the union and the employers ask for government's help to
get the parties back to the bargaining table.
We told
them that government won't do it alone. They must be part of the solution. The
Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act provides for an immediate return
to work under the terms of the collective agreement that expired in June 2003. A
mediation arbitration commissioner will finalize a new collective agreement by
May 31, 2004.
This
agreement will take into account the economic viability and competitiveness of
the coastal forest industry, as well as labour relations stability and interests
of unions and employees. The commissioner will have extensive authority to use
fact-finding, mediation, conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration to conclude
a collective agreement.
Both the
IWA and the FIR agree this legislation is required to assist them in getting a
new collective agreement. With the help provided by government in introducing
this bill, the parties can return to the bargaining table and reach a new
collective agreement to revitalize the coastal forestry industry.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, while we distribute the bill and members have a
chance to peruse its contents, we will take a ten-minute recess.
An Hon.
Member: Fifteen.
Mr.
Speaker: Fifteen? We will take a 15-minute recess, and we will ring the
division bells to recall members.
The House
recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 3 p.m.
[Mr.
Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G.
Bruce: By leave, I move that the bill be permitted to proceed through all
stages this day.
MacPhail: The opposition in supporting this request does not have any
intention to filibuster this legislation; however, we do have many questions.
Prior to
[ Page 8391 ]
granting leave, we seek assurance that we will be permitted to ask all of our
questions today.
Hon. G.
Collins: I do know that under standing orders, the House would normally
adjourn at 6 p.m. today. If members opposite require more time to complete their
work, then obviously we have no difficulty in having the House sit past six this
evening, and we would be willing to accommodate that.
Leave
granted.
Second Reading of Bills
COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. G.
Bruce: I move that Bill 99 be read a second time.
Mr.
Speaker, in introducing Bill 99, it is important to note the seriousness and the
reluctance that governments have in intervening in private labour disputes. It
is only with the greatest hesitancy that government is getting involved in a
private labour dispute.
Let
everyone understand that while this legislation responds to a specific request
from the people involved in this dispute, we had to look beyond the parties
themselves to the very real impact of a lengthy work stoppage in the forests.
The fact that we are here today underscores the importance of the forest
industry in British Columbia. This industry is vital to families, communities
and small businesses that depend on the forest to provide good jobs. A healthy
forest sector also helps pay for the vital social programs and contributes to
our economy as a whole.
Most of
all, we are here today to lend our support to the people who work in the coastal
forests — to the people at J.W. Berry Trucking Ltd. in Port Alberni, a family
company that has been in business for more than 30 years. They have 13 employees
and a fleet of trucks hauling chips, boxed logs, gravel and rock. To the people
at Falt Towing, another family company that has been running tugboats in
Cowichan Bay for more than 50 years. To the 200 people at the Field Sawmills
near Courtenay, a mill that produces high-value lumber products for the Japanese
market, and to the 45 employees at the Olympic Forest Products Ltd. log sort in
Powell River. All these employees and the thousands more IWA members affected by
this dispute have families. These families live in communities that depend on
the forest industry.
B.C.'s
coastal forest region provides almost 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. It
provides enough taxes to account for one of every five dollars spent on health
care in B.C. — or enough to pay for the education of almost 300,000 children
from kindergarten through grade 12 every year.
The coastal
logging industry employs some 11,000 people mostly in highly skilled and
well-paid occupations. In the year 2000 forest products manufacturing employed
more than 12,000 workers — 6,700 in lumber and the other solid wood products,
the remainder in pulp and paper.
The coastal
forest industry supports more communities than all other business sectors
combined. It consists of 20 million hectares of the most productive forest land
in Canada. In the year 2000 it produced forest products valued at $3.2 billion,
most sold in foreign markets, mainly to the United States and Japan.
[1505]
According
to the forest expert, Dr. Peter Pearse, the coast has higher costs and lower
returns on investment than other B.C. producers and other U.S. competitors. Dr.
Pearse found that the industry in its present form and on its present path is
financially unsustainable. With much of the industry still geared to harvesting
and processing old-growth timber, the costs of logging and processing on the
coast are more than 40 percent higher than the average of all other regions.
If we can
find a way to turn that around and modernize the coastal forest sector, then
there is a tremendous future in forestry on the coast of British Columbia. In a
vibrant and productive forestry sector, we could see new capital investment of
up to $1 billion over the course of the next ten years, according to a recent
industry report. But to create a robust forest industry, cost savings need to be
found and productivity needs to improve. On that score, there is agreement
between the union and the companies.
How we get
there is the challenge, and this is where government can assist. The Coastal
Forest Industry Dispute Settlement Act ends the current work stoppage and
provides a process to conclude a new collective agreement. Upon this legislation
coming into effect, IWA members will return to work under the terms of the
previous collective agreement. The contract dispute will be resolved through a
mediation-arbitration process that will consider the economic viability of the
industry.
mediation-arbitration commissioner will be appointed to resolve all issues in
dispute and conclude a new agreement by May 31, 2004. The commissioner's terms
employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness
of the coastal forest industry in both the short and the long term, the
importance of good labour-management relations in the coastal forest industry,
and the interests of trade unions and employees. In carrying out these tasks,
the commissioner will have extensive authority to use fact-finding, mediation,
conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration to conclude a collective agreement.
When I met
with the IWA and the FIR last week, both told me they wanted to reach a new
collective agreement, and neither wanted a work stoppage. The union and the
employer fully understand that the coastal forest industry needs to make
significant structural changes, and they know there would be a new agreement in
place eventually. They had already engaged the services of Don Munroe earlier on
as a facilitator. But even with all of these elements in place, the
[ Page 8392 ]
parties were unable to reach a collective agreement and have requested
government's assistance.
The union
and the employers understand the process and have agreed that Donald Munroe
will take on the role of mediation-arbitration commissioner. I think
commendation is in order for both the union and the employers for accepting a
process that puts families and communities first. As I have stated, government's
part is to assist the parties in getting back to the table. Hopefully, that in
itself will lead to an agreement. If not, Mr. Munroe will be empowered to
arbitrate on outstanding issues.
Having that
finality is important. We have only to look back to 1997 to see what happens
when these disputes are allowed to linger and positions become entrenched. That
was when a dispute in the pulp sector shut down the Crofton mill for ten months.
At the end of the day, everyone lost — the employees, the company, the
community and most of the families that lived there. This is not a scenario we
want to see repeated.
I should be
clear that the simple fact of a request for legislation would not normally be
enough to overcome our reluctance to intervene in the course of private sector
collective bargaining, but looking at the nature of the industry, the amount of
harm a prolonged strike would produce and the economic potential of this
industry, we are providing the assistance the parties have told us is needed to
conclude a new agreement. Bill 99 is presented today in the spirit of the
season, which is the spirit of giving, and both parties have done that in order
to help rejuvenate our forestry sector and provide a brighter future for our
families and our communities.
I have
moved second reading of Bill 99, the Coastal Forest Industry Dispute Settlement
Act.
[1510]
MacPhail: I rise to oppose Bill 99, and I do so given the comments that this
minister has just made. The spirit of giving. He says we're here under the guise
of a spirit of giving. That doesn't explain why we're here today.
The first
question this minister needs to answer is: why are we here today? We have two
parties who stood up on the stage with the Premier in a nice photo op — a
pre-Christmas, pre-vacation photo op for the Premier — with both parties
stating their willingness to come to an agreement: Duncan Davies, president of
the Forest Industrial Relations, and Dave Haggard, national president of the IWA.
Both of them were standing there saying: "We both want an agreement."
So what are we doing here today?
Why are we
recalling the Legislature? Why is this minister ramming through legislation when
both parties have said they want an agreement? Is there something wrong with
their characters — those two people's or the Premier's character — that they
need the force of legislation to do what's right and what they have admitted is
right and what they've acknowledged they want, which is to get a collective
agreement? Or is this some sort of southern U.S. state, where the ward bosses
first come in and make the decisions and then the Legislature rubber-stamps
them? Is that what we're doing here today? You bet it is.
Both the
IWA and the forest industry employer group, which we'll call FIR, have made it
clear that they're willing to go back to the table and try and negotiate an
agreement. They're big boys; they're big men. They've been through this many
times before. What is the government doing? Why are we here? I, for the life of
me, cannot figure it out. Both parties have indicated that failing the first
preferable option, they will accept binding arbitration. In fact, many a
collective agreement ends in binding arbitration because the parties agree to go
to binding arbitration. Yet here we are today.
The
minister says he's so reluctant to interfere in collective bargaining. What
balderdash. I think this about the eighth time he has interfered in collective
bargaining. He has set a record in North America as a Minister of Labour for
interfering in collective bargaining, always on the side of the employer, and
here we are again today. He protests and says he's reluctant to do so. Well,
here we are in yet another emergency session — gee, we weren't supposed to
have these emergency sessions, were we? — of the Legislature called by this
government in order for it to bring down its legislative hammer and impose an
agreement. Let's be clear: this is imposing an agreement.
This
legislation will come as a great surprise to IWA workers, hundreds of whom I
have talked to in the last three days.
J. Bray:
Hundreds?
MacPhail: Yes, hundreds. How many has the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill
talked to? Zero.
It will
come as a great surprise, the explanatory note of this legislation: "This
Bill settles the current coastal forest industry dispute and provides for the
conclusion of a new or revised collective agreement between the parties."
It's the hammer. It's imposing a collective agreement. There is absolutely no
question about it, and we know this is the government's preferred way of doing
business.
[1515]
My gosh,
this minister is really going to be accused of being coquettish once too often.
"Oh, I don't want to do this. I'm just horrified that I have to do
this." Nobody believes him anymore. His coquettish reluctance is turning
into faded, over-the-hill cooperation by the — I'm thinking of my
parliamentary language here — opening up for all of his attributes to be used
cooperatively, a government that does the bidding of employers once again.
That's what this minister has done. In fact, we also know that they were
actually salivating over interfering in two disputes, not just one.
Mr. Palmer
— Vaughn Palmer, the Vancouver Sun columnist — has it right. However,
it's been on the Internet grapevine and the Internet labour gossip line since
last Thursday night — what this government's
[ Page 8393 ]
intention was. Mr. Palmer has it exactly accurate. He today notes:
"…as government members prepare to intervene in this labour dispute, they
are also fretting about the one that got away. For this time last week, the
front-of-mind strike for the Liberals was not the one in the forests. It was the
strike on B.C. Ferries, and some government members were smacking their lips at
the prospect of intervention."
In fact, we
heard of individual Liberal MLAs saying: "We're going to break that union
once and for all." They meant the ferry workers union. Yeah, we had the
quotes. "We're going to break them once and for all. We're going to bust
that union." Well, it turns out that the union they really are going to
bust is the IWA.
This
government's industrial relations are such a failure that the legislative hammer
has become the norm so much that in its dispute, even the union leadership saw
it as their only option. As the union members see this legislation, they, too,
will have questions for their union leadership when they see the onerous nature
of this legislation and how much they're losing. There will be not only doubts,
not only reservations, but opposition to this legislation.
The message
out of this legislation to employers is crystal-clear. They don't have to
bargain in good faith, because the B.C. Liberal government will come in and bail
them out by imposing an employer-friendly contract. This bill is a clear
indication that once again, under the B.C. Liberals, the employer wins. I had to
sit here and steam when this minister introduced it at first reading and said
that this gets IWA workers back to work. It doesn't get IWA workers back to
work. There is nothing in this bill that gets IWA workers back to work. It
contains no guarantee of a return to work.
In fact,
employers are telling workers — as of the last 24 hours — that they won't be
recalled. The Chemainus mill owned by Weyerhaeuser is telling its workers:
"Oh, sorry, we're not calling you back until after the statutory holidays,
because we don't want to pay you statutory holiday pay." That was a mill
that was operating before the strike and had no plans for a shutdown at this
time of year. Are they putting their workers back to work because of this
legislation? No, they're not. The minister was dead wrong, perhaps deliberately
so, in saying that this returns IWA workers to work. It simply doesn't.
What do IWA
members get from this deal? Well, they get their old master agreement to
convince them to go back to work, but they only get it till May 2004. For much
of that time, many forestry workers will be off for the winter slowdown anyway.
They'll be on layoff. This isn't giving IWA workers access to their master
agreement — not at all. IWA workers will get EI. That's what they'll get.
At most,
getting a return to their master agreement is a Pyrrhic victory for IWA members.
By the time many millworkers are headed back to the job in spring, it will be a
matter of mere weeks before the hammer of the commissioner's binding arbitration
comes down. In the interim, the commissioner has the power to make interim
agreements to weaken provisions of the master agreement. Right here in the
legislation the commissioner has all sorts of opportunities to impose different
wages and working conditions — lesser so, you can guarantee it — on IWA
workers.
[1520]
You know,
Mr. Don Munroe is a very experienced conciliator, mediator and arbitrator, but
he's not new to the forest industry. He's not new to being a commissioner, to
trying to resolve these disputes. I spoke with a couple of IWA workers today,
who remembered clearly the last time a Social Credit government intervened in
bargaining — in 1986. Now, the government of the day didn't do what this
government does, which is just — by the big legislative hammer — to impose
arbitration conditions. It appointed an industrial inquiry commission, which is
of course available to this minister as well, under the Labour Relations Code
— easily available.
Mr. Munroe,
a well-respected person, sat as part of that three-person industrial inquiry
commission in 1986. What happened then, Mr. Speaker? Well, the industrial
inquiry commission made recommendations, and the union got to vote on it. They
voted 98 percent against Mr. Munroe's recommendations.
So here's
what this government is doing. They don't want IWA workers to have a vote.
That's what this is about, pure and simple. Don't give them a vote. Don't let
them have a say in their future. That's what this legislation is about, pure and
simple. God forbid that the thousands of IWA workers, who have worked in this
industry for decades, get a say in their future. Of course the companies don't
get a say either. Those smaller companies are fretting that they, too, are
having their voting rights taken away.
Here we
have a government-imposed-by-legislation commissioner who can make interim
agreements to weaken provisions of the master agreement and then can finally
impose, through binding arbitration, a weakened agreement. The workers and the
employers get not a whit of say. Well, what do the employers get? What do you
know? Right in the legislation are terms of reference that give the industry
exactly what it's asking for.
Here are
the terms of reference in the legislation, and if this isn't pro-industry, I
don't know what is. Here's what the terms of reference listed in the legislation
say. It starts off with the need that the commissioner has to consider (
a) the
viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest industry in both the short
and long term." That's exactly what the industry wanted, and they got it
right there in legislation. The terms under which the commissioner has to
operate also reference the importance of good labour management relationships in
the coastal industry and the interests of employees and trade unions.
But nowhere
in this legislation is there any mention of the importance of communities. Those
forest-dependent communities are the biggest losers of all under this
government. I can hardly wait for those Liberal MLAs who come from
forest-dependent communi-
[ Page 8394 ]
ties to stand up and say where the interests of forest-dependent communities
are in this legislation. Dead silence. Nothing. So they're the biggest losers of
all. With each passing year, the number of communities and people who are losing
out in this province grows at a staggering rate.
The fact
that we are here in this chamber today, once again being called back for a
special session to legislate another collective agreement, is a testament to
this Premier's failure — his failed economic agenda. Really, the reason why
this government has intervened in this dispute when there was absolutely no
necessity…. He could have said to the men: "Be big men and do what you
both agreed to — bargain." The reason why the government is ordering this
group back is because they're desperate for the revenue, because of the
Premier's failed economic agenda. They're desperate because the Premier has a
failed industrial relations strategy. As important as anything else, the Premier
has failed in settling the softwood lumber dispute, and he has failed in his
attempt to revitalize forest policy.
[1525]
I found it
astounding — the Minister of Forests' answers about the softwood lumber
dispute today. It's way, way more important in our economy than anything else,
and the Minister of Forests has no answers. He blusters. He turns beet-red, and
he should turn beet-red with embarrassment because he has no answers, he's got
no resolution and he's being forced to eat his own words on how he says he would
resolve the dispute.
Let's start
with this government's failed economic agenda, because that's really why we're
here. Under this Premier's leadership, B.C.'s fiscal and economic situation has
gotten much, much worse. The Premier promised a new era of hope and opportunity,
and what have British Columbians got instead? Deficit at historic levels. The
debt continues to climb, and B.C.'s economy is stagnating.
More than
200,000 British Columbians are unemployed, and the province is receiving
considerably less revenue in sales and corporate taxes. We saw that in the
second quarter report. The only reason this government can say it's on track to
meet its $2.3 billion deficit figure is because of higher-than-expected revenues
from natural gas and the Crowns and actual revenue from Crowns such as B.C.
Rail. It's turning a much higher-than-expected profit.
The
Premier's economic plan has failed miserably. His high income tax cuts did not
pay for themselves, they did not stimulate economic growth, and they did not
result in more money for public services. More than two years into the brave new
era, the net result for British Columbians has been high unemployment, big
deficits, slow growth, lost public services and squandered public assets.
Here are
the telling statistics of the new era. Here's what they are — government never
likes to say this: real average hourly wage down in B.C. by 2.4 percent since
2002, the worst in Canada; average weekly wages down from $683 a week in
December 2002 to $680 in August 2003 — so hourly wages down, weekly wages
down. In 2002, the first full year of the new era, real disposable personal
income was down by 0.2 percent. Under the NDP the average yearly growth of real
disposable personal income was 1.4 percent. Wow, and they're considered good
economic managers. Wow. Working families have really benefited from this
government — not.
British
Columbia posted the most significant decline in the country in non-residential
construction in the third quarter of this year — down 8.8 percent in
Vancouver, and that's the hotbed. In the province as a whole, non-residential
construction is down by 9.4 percent. Vehicle sales — down in September 2003 by
1,100 vehicles from a year earlier. More than 1/5 of the total Canadian decline
in vehicle sales occurred right here in British Columbia.
[1530]
Unemployment
is up from 2001. The north coast unemployment rate is 10.6 percent; the Cariboo
unemployment rate, 9.8 percent; Kootenay unemployment rate, 9.4 percent; lower
mainland, 8 percent; Vancouver Island unemployment rate, 8.6 percent. I know
this government loves to talk about the jobs it created. I noted they made a big
fuss in October when jobs were created, but when the unemployment rate in
November actually fell because people were leaving the province — that's the
only reason the unemployment rate fell; 5,000 workers left the workforce, and
not one new job was created — there was silence from the Liberals and silence
from the Vancouver Sun , I might add, as well. Funny how the Vancouver
Sun only likes to report on economic news that doesn't damage the B.C.
Liberals — absolutely nothing on the fact that people are fleeing the British
Columbia workforce.
Well,
here's what happened to total employment between August 2002 and August 2003.
Employment growth was a meagre 1.1 percent. What was the average employment
growth during the NDP's ten years? It was 2.1 percent. That's the decade of
decline that the Liberals like to talk about — really. I bet you the Minister
of Labour won't be using that term in debate here, because their shameful
two-year record on economic failure outpaces any other jurisdiction in Canada.
Now, let's
see about their failed labour relations agenda. Since almost the day it was
elected, this government has gone to war with working people, interfering in the
collective bargaining process to impose heavy-handed, one-sided legislation. In
just over two years this government has torn up the contracts for tens of
thousands of workers, including professionals like the doctors. They've done all
of that by a stroke of the legislative pen. The B.C. Liberal government has
introduced legislation to retroactively cancel the contracts of health care
workers, including doctors. They've cancelled teachers' and college instructors'
contracts, cancelled arbitration for the physicians and imposed a collective
agreement on transit workers. In fact, this government's record on industrial
relations is so bad that it has actually been censured by the Inter-
[ Page 8395 ]
national Labour Organization, a UN body, for its labour policies.
Here we are
today in what I think is the seventh or eighth time this government is
interfering in the free collective bargaining process. My colleague the member
for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will talk about that a little bit later. Once
again, here we are, with this government interfering in a process that they
don't have to interfere in at all — in the private sector, with the two main
sides saying they're happy to go back to work, happy to mediate, happy to have
binding arbitration. There's no need for this oppressive legislation except for
this Liberal government's failures.
Their third
failure, of course, is the failed softwood lumber dispute strategy and their
failed forest policies. Let's go. I noted that the Minister of Labour talked
about some truck logger he had heard from. Well, I guess that truck logger is
bitter, because here's what this B.C. Liberal Premier said to the Truck Loggers
Association convention on January 17, 2003. Let's see; that would be exactly 11
months ago. Here's what he said. I quote the Premier: "I'm here to tell you
that this is the year for forestry in the province of British Columbia. This is
the year we turn to the future." He got a standing ovation from the truck
loggers. Who wouldn't give him a standing ovation with the big-guy promise like
that? Wow.
[H.
Long in the chair.]
Well, if
this is the year we turn to the future, God help us. It has been a year of
disaster after disaster for the forestry sector. I bet you that now that truck
logger is saying: "Oh my God. Don't make any promises in 2004." I'm
pretty sure that's what the forest sector is saying.
[1535]
Yep, at the
beginning of 2003 the Premier declared this would be the year of forestry. He
left out one word. I hate it when that happens on your computer — you know,
when the computer deletes one word. He meant to say, surely: "This is going
to be a disastrous year for forestry — annus horribilis year of
forestry." He forgot those words.
So here's
what the future looks like 11 months after the Premier made that promise: no
softwood lumber agreement with the United States; a proposed agreement that does
exactly what the Minister of Forests in B.C. said he wouldn't allow to happen
— impose quotas. That's exactly what's on the table. That's being condemned by
all the major players in the industry, and there's no likelihood of reaching an
agreement that's good for B.C. until after November 2004. No agreement, despite
the Premier's two cap-in-hand trips to the feet of Dick Cheney, the
Vice-President of the United States. In fact, I recall the Premier saying in his
last cap-in-hand trip to see Dick Cheney that we're within weeks of resolving
this dispute. Hmm, let me see. How long ago was that?
agreement, despite the government getting rid of the appurtenancy clause that
required companies to mill timber in the area that was cut so as to protect jobs
and build communities. No wonder this government doesn't mention any protection
for communities in this legislation. I guess it's turning out that if the
interior is the heartland — actually, the members from the coast say that the
coast is the heartland — this government is cholesterol. There's no question
about that.
agreement, despite the government ending cut control that guaranteed a steady
supply of fibre to local mills employing local workers, who in turn supported
community businesses. No softwood lumber agreement, despite the government
making it easier for companies to sell off their licences without penalty,
thereby allowing for even greater corporate concentration, which is leading to
mill closures and layoffs that have impacted the viability of communities across
this province.
No softwood
lumber agreement, despite the gutting of the Forest Practices Code and
environmental protection. No softwood lumber agreement, despite the proclaiming
of all of B.C.'s non-protected lands as "the working forest," which
allows for the opening up of Crown lands to increased commercial pressure and
now makes habitat protection a thing of the past. No softwood lumber agreement,
despite the government taking back 20 percent of licence tenure and its attempt
to create a competitive log market and stumpage rate. What a record. What a
shameful record of failure. All of this is impacting on the negotiations —
that we're now legislating away worker rights.
Companies
are coping on the coast with this government's failure to resolve the softwood
lumber dispute, having no answers. We saw that in question period today. The
Minister of Forests is doing a tour, talking to chambers of commerce. Gee, that
must be a rough audience for him. Well, it turns out it is a growingly rough
audience because of his failure to resolve the dispute.
No answers
otherwise. So we have a coastal forest industry being devastated; the interior
looking for resolve to the softwood lumber dispute; this government caving to a
proposed agreement that imposes quotas, something they said they'd never do;
this government ending contractors' protection for getting a fair wage in the
logging sector; and this government's refusal to protect the social contract
that existed between forest-dependent communities and the workers there — that
if a tree was cut down in the community, a job would be created in that
community. That's all gone.
What a
shameful record of failure. What has been the ultimate result of this Premier's
failed forest agenda? Devastated communities across the province with record
high unemployment levels in the forest sector before this strike, a demoralized
population and not one word of comfort for those communities in this
legislation. In fact, this new legislation, Bill 99, will add to and compound
that devastation.
[1540]
The
government says it had to bring in the bill to get forest workers back to work.
Well, that is just simply not true. In fact, some of the workers have gone
[ Page 8396 ]
back already. They didn't need legislation. They went back to work before the
legislation was even introduced. Companies are clearly taking a stand on whether
they're going to give the master agreement to the workers or not. Some companies
are saying: "Oh, sorry. We're not recalling you."
I'll be
asking the minister what guarantees he has for the workers that they'll be
called to work. Company by company, I'll be asking the minister at committee
stage. He said this will get them back to work. Tell me when and where.
TimberWest isn't doing that. Loggers are laid off anyway. In fact, just last
week Interfor and TimberWest, two of the largest companies in British Columbia,
after they'd cut the deal with this minister about this legislation — after
they'd cut the deal, which has been over a couple of weeks in the making —
sent out letters to their workers cancelling the agreements between the workers
and the companies.
TimberWest
and Interfor, knowing full well they were going to have their way with this
government, aren't living up to putting workers back to work under the previous
agreement. TimberWest has made it quite clear it's not going to call crews back
to work. It's made it quite clear to its workers. Now, how would we know that?
Because we're actually out there talking to IWA workers, unlike the Minister of
Labour and unlike the Premier. They have not talked to any worker who is
actually working in the industry now — not one. But we have been, and here's
the information we're getting back.
As I said
earlier, the Weyerhaeuser Chemainus mill manager has told the workers, since
this announcement was made, that they won't be bringing them back before the
statutory holidays. Why is that? Because they don't want to have to pay
statutory holiday pay. That's nice. The minister is completely wrong when he
says this legislation puts IWA workers back to work. Maybe that's why as more
details emerge, IWA workers, in the majority, don't support this direction.
How far is
this government willing to go? It was very interesting to read
section 9. Okay,
so we know that the rest of the bill says that everything's got to be in place
by May 31, including the arbitrator's binding collective agreement, and that
lots and lots of IWA workers won't even be back to work until April anyway. Just
in case the arbitrator doesn't impose enough concessions on IWA workers, he gets
another kick at the cat under
section 9. What
section 9 says is that the
commissioner will report to the minister before July 31, 2004, with
recommendations respecting: "(
i) the impact that, in the commissioner's
opinion, current coastal forest policy may have on the successful operation of a
collective agreement concluded under this Part, and (ii) measures that the
trustee of the B.C. Forestry Revitalization Trust referred to in
section 10 of
the Forest Revitalization Act may take, and what the parties to a collective
agreement concluded under this Part may do to maximize funding under the
trust."
[1545]
So May 31
— impose collective agreement through binding arbitration that the workers
don't get a vote on; nor do the companies. Then let's say the softwood lumber
dispute is on the verge of being resolved if this government gives more
concessions to the Americans and if those concessions involve this government
having to tear up even some of the lesser wages and working conditions imposed
through binding arbitration. Then the commissioner can make recommendations to
the government — how they should further erode the contract in order to
appease the Americans under the softwood lumber dispute even more.
There's a
nice little path outlined in this legislation of the ability for this government
to make even further concessions for working families and forest-dependent
communities by legislation. What a record. What a shameful record of failure.
Well, I will just say that the NDP has no…. We have no intention of holding up
this agreement, none whatsoever, because that's what people have said that they
want — says this government.
We'll see.
We believe very strongly that getting a fair resolution in this dispute is
crucial to B.C. We didn't need to be here to do that. This government could have
appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner, according to the current law of
the land.
We will
oppose this legislation, but we will not hold it up. It is incumbent upon us, as
the opposition, to ask all the necessary questions to get this minister on
record for what his and his government's real intentions are. We will provide
the proper examination of this legislation that the public expects, that the
workers and the companies expect and indeed depend on us for.
We have no
intention of merely filibustering this bill. There are one or two government
members who wish to address this bill, and we assume they have no intention of
filibustering this legislation either. We oppose it. We will stand to oppose
this legislation. We will do absolutely nothing to exacerbate the failures of
this government.
Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance to respond in second
reading to Bill 99.
Is it a
bird? Is it a plane? No, it's supergovernment. Big Brother government has once
again come to the rescue in British Columbia.
But wait a
minute. Who is actually being rescued here? Is it the B.C. taxpayer? Is it the
forestry employers, or is it the forestry workers? Dare I say it? Is it just the
government rescuing itself, being opportunistic and self-serving? God forbid.
Perish such a thought.
Could it be
that government could stoop so low as to seek to undermine the collective
bargaining rights of British Columbians at Christmastime, of all times? Surely,
they wouldn't take advantage of difficulties in the labour dispute to further
their own mandate of weakening workers' rights while placing more power into the
employers' hands.
I'm just
calling a spade a spade here, and if this is the mandate, I would say to the
minister: "Just say so." If this intervention is — as the minister
has said — in the spirit of the season, isn't the Christmas season, folks,
about honesty, truth and giving? So what is the
[ Page 8397 ]
truth with respect to the government's intervention at this time with this
piece of legislation? And where is the giving?
[1550]
Who is the
giver? Who is the receiver? If the government's motivation is good and honest
and not devious, not in collusion with one side in this dispute, then we might
see a fair outcome. What I see so far I don't care for, but I hold my skepticism
in reserve. It is Christmas, after all. I just hope that the workers and their
families are not going to end up, at the end of the day, with a lump of coal.
J. Kwan:
I rise to engage in debate on Bill 99, the Coastal Forest Industry Dispute
Settlement Act. The bill was introduced today. At the time of first reading I
couldn't help but think — and in fact I said — that this is all about
politics. That's why the government has brought this bill in. It is about
politics and is not, in fact, about communities. What this government does, and
has a record of doing, is inject politics into labour relations in British
Columbia. No matter what the damage, that's their ideology, and that's what they
will do. That's what they're doing now.
At that
time, Mr. Speaker, when I heckled the minister that this is all about politics,
the member for Burquitlam shouted at me and said: "Well, duh. Is there
anything inside your head?" That's what the member for Burquitlam said. I
have to ask the member in this chamber…. Perhaps the elastic in his hairband
is too tight. I wonder what's inside his head. The pattern of what this
government has done to date has demonstrated that the entire process….
Deputy
Speaker: Pardon me. Will the member please keep the decorum of the House.
J. Kwan:
What this government has demonstrated around labour relations is nothing but
politics. That's what this government is doing with Bill 99, and that's what
this government has done in the past with a series of bills. In fact, I did a
count while the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings,
was speaking. I did a count of how many bills this government has brought in for
political reasons to interfere in labour relations in the province of British
Columbia. The count comes to 11 pieces of legislation.
Let me just
review for the record. In the lead-up to the 2001 election the Premier — then
the opposition leader and now Premier — told working people in British
Columbia that he would respect agreements that had been negotiated and signed by
public service workers and their employers. Here's a direct quote: "I'm not
tearing up any agreements." That is a direct quote from the now Premier,
the then opposition leader, quoted in the HEU Guardian , November 2000.
In just
over two years this government has torn up the contracts for tens of thousands
of workers by a stroke of the legislative pen. Since almost the day it was
elected, this government has gone to war with working people, interfering in the
collective agreement process, in the bargaining process, to impose heavy-handed,
one-sided legislation. The B.C. Liberal government has introduced legislation to
retroactively cancel the contracts of health care workers, teachers and college
instructors and to cancel arbitration for physicians.
[1555]
In fact,
this government is so keen on injecting politics into the daily lives of British
Columbians that the Minister of Education went and came up with this college act
— for the first time in the history of British Columbia taking away an
independent authority of a profession for self-regulation. It is this government
who has done that, and it is this Minister of Education who hates the teachers
so very much that she thinks by creating a warpath against the teachers, by
taking away their independence as a professional body, somehow that would
benefit the education system. Only she found out the hard way. She had to eat
crow and understand that injecting politics into the classrooms is the wrong
thing to do, and that understanding the teachers in the classrooms has every
value in our education system.
That is the
ideology of this government — much to the Minister of Education's chagrin, I'm
sure, that she got caught, and this government's chagrin that they got caught
with their pants down each and every time. They should understand that
introducing politics into the lives of British Columbians in such a way that
hurts and damages the long-term viability of communities is the wrong thing to
do.
The member
for Burquitlam would be wise to understand that concept. The issue around
introducing politics in such a negative way that disrupts the due process of
labour relations in British Columbia, for both the employers and the workers, is
not beneficial in the long term. It creates instability in our economy, it
creates instability for the workers, and it creates instability for our
communities. That's why politics should not be injected into labour relations in
the cavalier way that this government, this Minister of Labour and this Minister
of Education like to do.
In almost
every case….
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
I know there'll be ample opportunity for the Liberal MLAs to rise up. They're
heckling me like crazy. It kind of hurts when you press the right buttons, Mr.
Speaker. But let me tell you that these are the facts, and I'm putting it on the
record. The members may not like it, but they are the facts.
In almost
every case there was not even an attempt to negotiate first. Instead, this
Liberal government has chosen to create conflict and division, which this
Minister of Education is so apt in demonstrating, injecting the kind of conflict
and division into the classrooms that hurts students and their education. But to
heck with them. That's what this Minister of Education's
[ Page 8398 ]
approach has been, and that's what this government's approach has been.
This
government has chosen to create conflict and division in our health care system,
in our schools, in our colleges, in our ferry system — just about anywhere
they could lay their dirty fingers on. They have interfered in collective
bargaining so many times and have called this Legislature back for so many
emergency sessions that it actually makes your head spin.
In fact,
the first legislative act of this B.C. Liberal government was to bring
back-to-work legislation for health care workers. In what would be the first of
many special emergency sittings of the Legislature, this government brought in
Bill 2, Health Care Services Continuation Act, on June 19, 2001 — a mere month
after they were elected.
[1600]
They
followed that up with the infamous Bills 27, 28 and 29 in a weekend marathon of
contract-breaking in January of 2002. This government tore up thousands of
contracts in the health and education sectors, the very contracts the Premier
promised he would not tear up. The Premier actually promised he would honour
them. So much for the Premier's word. Now we know what the Premier's word is
worth: nothing — not the paper it was written on. The New Era document
it was printed on is worth nothing. These bills pave the way for massive cuts to
health care and education and for the closures of hospitals and care facilities
throughout the province.
Damage to
the health care system is not the only consequence of the B.C. Liberal
government's decision to rip up contracts. The other is, of course, the sullied
reputation the B.C. Premier has been given in the international and business
communities. After all, a contract is a legally binding agreement, the sanctity
of which is absolutely critical to creating a positive business climate. As the Globe
and Mail editorial stated at the time, the Premier "violated a basic
covenant on the weekend by forcibly rewriting legal negotiated contracts that
were still in force. If he is not prepared to respect so basic a legal
agreement, what other contracts is he prepared to rip up?" That's a direct
quote from the Globe and Mail . Indeed, what other contracts?
As it turns
out, breaking contracts and legislating people back to work has become a
hallmark of this B.C. Liberal government. In fact, this government's record on
industrial relations is so bad that it actually has been censored by a United
Nations body for its labour policies — a rare and shameful occurrence for a
Canadian administration. The International Labour Organization has ruled that
the B.C. Liberal government violated the UN convention on freedom of association
and has called on the government to repeal the law declaring K-to-12 education
an essential service and to amend five other statutes to ensure that working
conditions are negotiated rather than imposed. This is what the UN had to say.
In the most
recent session this government brought in Bill 94, the Health Sector
Partnerships Agreement Act — legislation that amplified the contract-breaking
provisions of Bill 29, extending the rules on contracting-out to any private
company hired by a health authority to deliver non-clinical services.
On top of
the multiple attacks this government has made on the free collective bargaining
process, this B.C. Liberal government has also attacked the working people in
British Columbia in two other ways. They've made a number of regressive changes
to the Labour Code, including changes that made organizing new certifications
difficult and de-certification easier. Non-union workers have had their
protections under the Employment Standards Act gutted. Some of the most recent
changes by this B.C. Liberal government exclude farmworkers from rules governing
hours of work, overtime and statutory holiday pay — and deregulated child
labour…. All employees have suffered from the cuts this government has made to
the Workers Compensation Board, which have reduced injured worker benefits,
ended rehabilitation programs and closed WCB offices.
[1605]
Other
policies that hurt workers and have been brought to British Columbians by this
government include the two-tier minimum wage, or what this government likes to
call the training wage, and the pro-smoking rules for bars and restaurants. The
government actually overruled the WCB in order to accomplish this for their
election donors. In just the past two sessions this government has introduced a
myriad of bills that directly and negatively affect workers in this province.
Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act, which ripped up contracts for B.C. ferry
workers; Bill 89, the B.C. Railway Amendment Act, which ripped up contracts for
workers at the B.C. Rail port subdivision; Bill 61, the Community Services
Labour Relations Act, which established that successorship rights would no
longer exist for community care workers; Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships
Agreement Act, which ripped up successorship rights for contractor employees;
Bill 95, the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003,
which allowed the minister to impose the disastrous cooling-off period for ferry
workers that escalated the ferry dispute; Bill 37, the Skills Development and
Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, which legislated child labour, giving B.C.
the lowest standards in Canada for protecting children in the workforce.
Earlier
legislation eliminated farmworkers from the Employment Standards Act; Bill 39,
the Transmission Corporation Act, which overrides portions of the OPEIU
collective agreement; and then Bill 21, the University of British Columbia
Services Continuation Act, which ordered workers back to work at UBC. These are
just the bills from the recent sessions.
It's almost
as if this government cannot come into this chamber without attacking the
working people of this province and damaging the process of free collective
bargaining, which is key to a democratic society. The message of this government
to employers is clear: there is no need to bargain in good faith. Just put on a
[ Page 8399 ]
bit of a show, and then we'll come in with our legislative hammer and impose
a settlement.
In taking
this high-handed ideological approach, this government has undermined the free
collective bargaining process and created a climate of instability and
confrontation that is not good for anyone. It's not good for the workers, it's
not good for the investors, it's not good for communities, and it's not good for
our economy. Generally, it's not good for British Columbians, who are just
trying to lead their lives to make a living in this economy in our province.
You have to
wonder, Mr. Speaker: what is Bill 99 about? When you look through the bill which
the government introduced today…. I looked through it. We had a 15-minute
recess, and I looked through this bill. While my colleague from
Vancouver-Hastings and the House Leader were speaking, I looked through the bill
again, and I note there's not one mention of communities in here, in this entire
piece of legislation. There's not one mention about the provision of returning
to work. The Minister of Labour and the Premier, in their own press release,
said that this bill was going to return workers to the workforce. Well, there's
nothing in this bill that would call the workers back now.
In fact, my
colleague from Vancouver-Hastings identified that in Chemainus, Weyerhaeuser had
already indicated they would not be calling workers back — why? — because
they want to save on overtime pay over the holiday season. Where else?
TimberWest said they're not going to be calling the workers back. What does this
mean for a lot of the workers? What it means is that they can then collect EI.
Then you
have to ask the question: why is there such urgency for this bill to be brought
in this House for this government to bring forward the legislative hammer, when
in fact it does not return workers back to work? Interesting, isn't it? Other
than to say this legislation is about ideology….
[1610]
It's about
some sort of backroom deal that the government made amongst a few people, and
that's what this piece of legislation is about. Be damned with the free
collective bargaining process; be damned with industrial relations in British
Columbia. Be damned with stability in the workforce, where investors need to
know there are good processes in place that would be respected, where people
need to know that contracts and legal agreements are not signed to be ripped up
and torn apart just like that at the whim of the Premier, at the whim of the
Minister of Labour, at the whim of this government. Ideology prevails, where
their mentor…. I shouldn't say mentor. Sorry, that's the wrong word. Their
leading charge always, always puts politics before the people.
That is the
approach where confrontation on conflict wins the day. They want to see
community pitted against community, workers against employers, so that there's
discord in the community and so that negotiation would not have an opportunity
in our labour relations process. At the end of the day, all the employer needs
to do is say to this government, "We don't want to negotiate. Do what you
can do," and that is to legislate and bring down the legislative hammer so
that the process of fair negotiations in British Columbia would be completely
undermined.
In this
instance, with Bill 99, many of the workers themselves would not even have the
right to vote on their future when they've invested years and in some cases
decades of their lives into their careers, in their jobs. They've invested their
families' future in their jobs. This government is saying: "You don't even
get a vote in saying where your future lies." Shame.
Hayer: Bill 99, the bill we are debating today, is all about partnerships.
It is about getting people back to work, about getting a huge industry component
getting together, joining together in a partnership to get people back to work,
to get labour negotiations back on track, to have government, industry and
unions working together to solve a crisis.
We have an
industry that is already on its knees due to American protectionist policies. We
cannot afford to hurt it further ourselves by having the coastal sector out of
production. No one wants to see people out of work, particularly at this time of
year. Workers, communities and families are being impacted and are being hurt
during a time when everyone should be celebrating, should be gathering together
for a joyful Christmas season.
The union
that represents coastal forest workers is supporting this legislation. In fact,
IWA president Dave Haggard joined with the Premier on Sunday and said:
"This is the right time for the government to act in this dispute."
That is a clear indication that what we are doing here today is the right and
proper thing to do. Change is needed in the coastal forest industry to ensure
its survival and the survival of well-paying jobs to keep families and
communities strong.
Most of the
saw and shingle mills in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead depend on the
strength and viability of the coastal forest industry. This legislation will
give them certainty and security. It will ensure that people are back at work,
that fibre will continue to flow into the mills and that many of my constituents
keep working. The union wants this legislation, the employers — through the
Forest Industrial Relations organization — want this, and both parties want to
get back to the bargaining table.
[1615]
This
legislation enables that. It provides the breather that everyone needs —
workers, their families, their communities and their employers — to get back
to the table to negotiate a settlement to this dispute that works for everyone.
Both sides in this dispute asked the government to be involved, and both sides
support the actions we are taking now in this House.
On the
government side, we often talk about the new era. Well, we are seeing that new
era in action. We are doing what we were asked to do: help bring about a
resolution to a dispute that has been hurting British
[ Page 8400 ]
Columbia's reputation, hurting our economy, hurting our communities and
hurting our families. Clearly, it is time to resolve this issue, and by debating
this legislation today, we are moving towards resolution, moving away from the
hurtful things and moving toward a positive outcome that will benefit us all
over the long term.
Everybody
acknowledges that change needs to come to the coastal forest industry, and those
changes will come, I am certain, as a result of the union and the industry
sitting down once again across the bargaining table. While both parties start
talking again, workers will be back at work, families will prosper, and,
hopefully, a little extra can be under the Christmas tree this year as a result
of this legislation.
Therefore,
I want to congratulate both the industry and the union for requesting the
assistance of the government to bring a resolution to this dispute. I wish them
much success in their negotiations. Lastly, I offer everyone the best of the
season.
Harris: I was going to be brief, but I don't think I'll be quite as brief as
I originally planned on, especially after listening to the members from the
opposition. I want to start off with a little story about where I think a lot of
us…. I think every one of us had different plans for where we were going to be
today. I know I had a different idea of what I'd be doing today, before Sunday.
I'd planned to be in one of the schools in my riding today, talking to a class.
Actually, there were about three classes coming.
We had to
phone the principal of that school on Monday and tell him that I wouldn't be
able to attend because the House was being called back, and we told him why. His
response initially…. Actually, it was my CA that called. It wasn't me. She
came back and said: "Well, he seemed a little bit short, because they were
kind of disappointed. They had planned this event around it, and he'd be going
down to tell the teachers in the class that you wouldn't be there." He was
pretty disappointed and wanted to know how we could actually do that. It didn't
seem right to him.
[Mr.
Speaker in the chair.]
About half
an hour later we got a call back from the principal, and my CA took it again.
His comment was: "Well, I went down and talked to the class, and actually,
I got a different point of view." He told the students that I wouldn't be
able to come in on Tuesday and that the reason was that the House was being
called back, and it was being called back because there was legislation that
would be passed that would bring an end to the work stoppage. One of the
students in the class said: "Well, my dad's been off work for quite a
while. That's a pretty good idea. That's a pretty good reason. That's okay with
me. Can he come in January?" Some of the other students joined in on that.
His comment was that he wanted to phone to say he's got a different perspective
on what we're doing today, because it is important.
I listen to
the member for Vancouver-Hastings and her partner go on about how concerned they
are about forest jobs in rural communities and how they can hardly wait for
someone from a rural community to stand up and actually talk about that. I wish
they had had that concern in the nineties — the nineties that the Leader of
the Opposition just raved about with all the great economic indicators. I think
we had something like close to 33,000 people working in the forest industry in
1990 and — what? — 15,000 today, tops, or maybe 12,000. That's probably
people that are registered to work in the industry but aren't actually working.
She talked
about appurtenancy. That's a great one. Twenty-seven mills have closed in B.C.
since 1995-96. We had appurtenancy then, and it didn't stop any of the mills.
They keep
throwing out the phrase "pro-industry." I know what they're getting
at, but I'll tell you what pro-industry means to me. Pro-industry is about
having an industry…. Actually, I think it means the same thing to companies;
it means the same thing to workers; it means the same thing to communities that
are forest dependent.
[1620]
It's about
an industry that's thriving. It's one that is attracting new investment and
that's actually creating new jobs. It's putting customers in the stores of our
chambers of commerce in every one of our little towns. It's putting students in
the classroom. Somehow we've got to manage to tie this whole thing to education.
It puts people in our communities. It makes our hospitals and all of our
services vital. It's actually what growth is about, and I wish they actually
gave a damn about it between 1990 and '99. I probably wouldn't have run for this
job. I'd still be doing my other job, because we'd all be doing pretty good.
There are a
lot of new people in this House. They're here because they couldn't take it
anymore. They couldn't take the fact that those folks didn't care about our
communities. They did everything in their power to finish us off. We used to
have 27 operating mines, I think, in 1990 and 11 today. Keep going down the
track we're going, and there'll be about five in another five years.
There was
no new development in rural communities. It was the census from '96 to 2000 that
confirmed what all of us in those communities knew — that we were dying, that
people were leaving. That's when the exodus was occurring, and it goes on and
on.
They talk
about pitting workers against employers, against communities. This bill is
anything but that. This minister and the Premier of this province need to be
commended. You know, being in government is about leadership. That's what it's
about. It's about when people come to you and ask for assistance — that you're
there.
In my
riding not that long ago, actually, we had a strike at the Eurocan pulp mill.
It's been going on since May. Both parties couldn't get anywhere. They came to
this government and said: "Can you give us a hand?"
[ Page 8401 ]
That minister was there. Two days later we have an agreement. People are back
to work. That's what this is about.
Those
members talk about the institutions. That's what concerns them. We talk about
the people. That's what I talk about. I talk about the people who are impacted
by not going to work, about that one child in that class who says: "That's
a good idea. My dad hasn't worked for a while. It would be nice to get him back
to work. I know he'd be happy to go back to work." That's important. That's
what this bill's about. They don't get it.
It's
actually not about pitting people against each other. It's about bringing people
together. I think it's absolutely amazing that we have the president of the IWA
and the chair of FIR going: "You know what? We need a little bit of help
here. Can you, as government, give us a hand?" Our job is to say yes.
That's actually what our job is. That's what we're here for. They don't get
that.
They want
to talk about everything today — absolutely everything. Well, what did they
do? What are we trying to do in our part of the world, and what's this
government doing to accomplish that? We're actually trying to bring back those
resource industries that those members, quite frankly, did a hell of a good job
of chasing right out of the province.
You look at
the work that the Minister of Mines has done in gas and oil. He went out and
listened to the industry and changed the royalty structure. He listened more to
them, got up in his 30,000-foot plane, took a look at the policy, landed it once
in a while, saw what the results were and came back. What is the benefit? Even
she had to admit it — the largest gas sale in the history of the province. Not
only is it a tremendous gas sale, but these aren't one-time-effort gas sales.
This is now actually an industry that's growing. He goes further to bring in a
royalty regime that provides incentives to look for oil in undeveloped basins.
That's a novel concept: go somewhere else in the province where there's
opportunity, where he couldn't before and where the cost of infrastructure has
always been a barrier. Now there's a government investment royalty scheme that's
going to encourage that. It actually ensures that all future oil and gas doesn't
happen just in the northeast. It goes right across this province.
He looks at
B.C. Hydro. He starts to build a regime that supports independent power
production. and what do they have in this province today? Some $800 million-plus
of new investment in this province in power projects — 17 new ones. And I
think there's a call for more yet. Fifteen of those are in rural communities.
One of them in the member from Bulkley's riding is up at the run of the river at
Iskut. What does that do for this province? It actually puts a power generation
plant in the far north. Where? Right at the edge of what's being referred to as
the golden triangle.
[1625]
That's the
other industry he's trying to bring back, the mining industry — changing the
regulatory structure, changing the way the investment world looks at it, the
approval process — making this whole system work better for all of us. What
are we seeing today as a result of that? This year in the northwest more than
10,500 mines were staked. That's up from 2,500 last year. That's the beginning
of starting to revitalize rural communities. That's what this government's
doing. They're doing that, and all of those initiatives impact and affect rural
communities in a positive way.
What's the
other thing we're trying to do for our heartland communities? Well, we're
actually trying to change the whole platform by which we look to the future so
that we're not just resource communities in the future.
The B.C.
Rail partnership — a great example. What are we going to get from that? An
international airport in Prince George. We can now bring direct flights from the
world into the north. That's a pretty good idea. The things that will flow off
that are amazing. We're going to get a container port in Prince Rupert. Every
single community from Massett right through to Dawson Creek can now look at
themselves entirely differently — can go out and attract businesses and
opportunities that could either complement the resource industries or be
entirely different. It's actually their chance to craft it.
They're all
rural initiatives. That's because we do care about those folks, those people —
the individuals who live in our communities. That's important stuff.
When I
listen to them go on and on as the protectors of my town…. There wouldn't be
two of them sitting here today if they actually did give a damn about my
community, and that's actually the fact. It was in 1999 that this province
became a have-not province.
We talk
about this stuff with every one of these bills that come up. When they start
talking about forestry…. It is scary — the thought that these two were the
core of a group of people designing forestry policy in this province. It's
absolutely scary. Their lack of understanding of this industry is beyond
comprehension.
They talk
with great pride about the Forest Practices Code. It added a billion dollars in
cost to this industry — a billion dollars. No benefit, and those are their
words. They drove that industry on the coast, from '91 to '99, from being the
lowest-cost to the highest-cost fibre producer in the world.
When I talk
about pro-industry, I talk about an industry that actually gets back on its
feet, which is no longer necessarily the highest-cost industry but is one that
has costs that are competitive and that has an environment that attracts
investment. That investment translates into new mills. It translates into new
opportunities. It translates into the things that each one of us who actually
represents those communities wants for our towns.
Do you know
what? The forest industry is going to continue to be and has always been the
backbone of this province. It is an integral part of our future, if not critical
and essential, but it also has to diversify.
These
members voted against legislation that reallocates fibre. They voted against
legislation that puts fibre in the hands of community forest licenses, into
woodlots, into salvage operators, into first nations.
[ Page 8402 ]
They voted against all of that. That doesn't tell me they really, to this
day, care all that much about rural communities.
Then I
listen to some of the facts that the Leader of the Opposition rattled off. Well,
you know what? These are some of the other facts that are the result of some of
the initiatives we've taken.
B.C.
building permits. The value of building permits issued by B.C. municipalities in
the first ten months of this year is up 15.2 percent, and it's well ahead of the
8.9 percent national average. Residential permits are up 18.6 percent in B.C.
New housing starts in B.C. are up 21 percent year to date compared to last year
— more than triple the 6.5 percent national increase.
The port of
Vancouver. Container shipments in the port of Vancouver continue to reach record
levels, up 16 percent in the first six months of 2003, compared with the same
period last year.
That brings
me to a point. I remember listening to the Leader of the Opposition last week, I
guess, talking about a container port in Prince Rupert — she's obviously not
too much in favour of that — being a net-zero gain. She's obviously not
reading the reports out — the fact that the projected growth in container
traffic today well exceeds anything we can actually do out of the combination of
the ports in Delta, Prince Rupert or the lower mainland.
Interjection.
Harris: Yes, I see that, Mr. Speaker. I'll get back to that. I'll tie this
together for you quite nicely. The fact is that I think it's important we talk
about what those folks say, but if we don't expand at all three ports, we'll
actually lose jobs to Seattle and Tacoma. That's why it's important we develop
and grow in these communities.
[1630]
Getting
back to the bill at hand, I think the Premier and the Minister of Labour need to
be commended because this bill does, in fact, start to build on a labour
relations model that brings people together. It's a bill that will finally bring
some settlement to this industry. It's a bill that will put people to work.
As I said,
people in my riding, those workers that work for Skeena Sawmills and have been
out of work since the Eurocan strike, are looking forward to the opportunity of
going back to work in the spring. I'm looking forward to them finally having a
chance, so that they can actually see in front of them some time lines that they
know will bring an end to a situation that's left them with no certainty in the
future in their lives.
You know,
we talk about what it costs. Recently I heard the new leader of the NDP saying
that the $20,000 price tag for coming back here is too high a price to pay.
Well, I would argue that the price to our communities, to those workers, to the
businesses that depend on those people's wages to keep them going is in the
millions — to date, I believe, $150 million in aggregated loss to the economy
of this province. That's people, that's their wages, and that's their
livelihoods. The social unrest that you get in communities when people just
aren't working — all of those are negatives. This industry and the impacts of
these kinds of labour disputes are felt very hard in small communities.
So it is
important that when unions and management come to this government asking for
assistance, it is our role to be there to help them, to help facilitate, and
this act does that. In fact, it does put people to work, does help the rural
communities and the people that live in them and the people that I represent.
I am very
pleased to be able to stand up here and support this bill. I am very pleased
that the minister has taken the initiative. I want to congratulate Dave Haggard
of the IWA and Duncan Davies of FIR for showing leadership with their
organizations. I think that's really important. I am pleased that the minister
was able to facilitate and put in place a model that's going to work well in
helping these people really move to a resolution in what is an incredibly
difficult time. It is an industry in transition, and it's one where both sides
share a common goal. That is a goal to make this industry competitive again, and
if we can in any way assist that, we should be. I am pleased to be able to
support this.
Visser: After having listened to the Leader of the Opposition — or the
House Leader of the Opposition — the leader of their political party in the
news today and the other member of the opposition, I think it's important that I
back up and put this in context. This is the coast forest industry. These are
the people that I represent, and these are the communities that I live in and
come from.
When we
took office a couple of years ago, we, under the Forests minister, decided that
we wanted to have a snapshot or a real look at the structural problems and the
structural issues that were inside the coastal forest industry. We hired Dr.
Peter Pearse to write a report and to take that snapshot and tell us as
government and tell the people of this province, especially the stakeholders in
that industry, just what it looked like — where we were, where we are today
and, if we don't do anything, where we'll be tomorrow. There was very little in
that report that suggested we should do nothing. In fact, many of us argued at
the time and all through this over the last couple years that actually doing
nothing would be a very large disservice to the people that we represent.
[1635]
So what do
we do? From that report on, we have been consulting with stakeholders. We had
the industry, the unions and the truck loggers — the contractors — in a room
together. We had government in that room. We worked there for 18 months trying
to figure out how to restructure this industry.
They had
long, hard, difficult, challenging conversations in that room, and all the time
they knew they were getting down to the end of their collective agreement in
June. This isn't new. This isn't a surprise that we're here today. I'm glad
we're here today, but it
[ Page 8403 ]
shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. This is an industry that's been in
crisis for the better part of a decade. That crisis was exacerbated, I believe,
through ignorance by the former government. These people in this industry have
some difficult decisions to make, some difficult choices to get through. It
takes leadership to move forward.
I want to
talk about our forestry revitalization plans for the coast — reallocating some
tenures, rejigging the way we do things, including first nations, including
communities, including woodlot licensees, including a broader range of folks in
the discussion. All are going to lend themselves to the revitalization of this
industry.
Taking an
industry that focuses on the trees, on the growing of trees, on the nurturing of
a forest to produce wealth, is what the legislation is about. A manufacturing
industry that looks for new markets, that looks to the world, that looks for new
products, that looks for innovation, that looks for opportunity — that's what
the legislation was about. We've got a long road to get there. It's not going to
be easy.
Behind the
scenes and running quietly has been this discussion about collective bargaining.
How do we get into the new world? How do we deal with a cost problem like we
have on the coast of British Columbia? Gang hemlock today — a staple
sawmilling item for the markets of Japan that is soft — trades at $45 a cubic
metre. It costs us $80 a cubic metre to get it off the side hill. The union
knows there's a cost problem. Industry knows there's a cost problem. Government
knows there's a cost problem.
government is going to rebuild forest policy. We're going to introduce a market
pricing system for stumpage that ties the value of those trees in the
marketplace to the stumpage that we collect. We're going to build the system
going forward that in low markets, government's return is low; in high markets,
government's return is high. The rent that those folks pay for that resource
will follow the market. It's a new thing for government. It's a new way to look
at it. It's going to be hard for us, but we're there because we know that's what
this industry needs to be stable and sustainable over the long term.
We've been
working through this project. We've been working with the stakeholders. We meet
with them individually. The Forests minister meets with them individually. The
Labour minister has met with them individually. The Premier meets with them
individually. The IWA, the contractors, value-added processors, forest
licensees, lumber manufacturers — all of them, continually. We talk with them
about softwood. We talk with them about policy. We talk with them about
developing new markets. We talk with them about the future.
I want to
relay to the House today a little meeting that we had about this very topic. The
Minister of Forests called a meeting in Campbell River, a quiet meeting. He
invited me along. We had it at Painter's Lodge. It felt like we were back 30
years ago. We had the captains of the industry there. Rick Doman was there.
Duncan Davies was there. Craig Neeser was there. Paul McElligott was there.
David Gray was there. Dick Jones was there. What were considered to be the
stakeholders and leaders of the industry who have been through this for that
time. All of the IWA presidents were there. Dave Haggard was there. Rick Wangler was there. Darrel Wong was there. Bill Routley was there. Monty Mearns
was there. The others were there.
[1640]
It was a
long weekend. It was a long weekend of hard discussions — discussions with the
minister and myself individually and discussions in the room together. We left
there without a deal, but every single person at that table tried hard. The
union came a distance; the companies came a distance. Everybody came a distance
and went away without a deal. We let it go. We let them try. We let them work on
it for a while. I think that's great. I think they worked hard, but they came to
an impasse.
On Sunday
when the Premier, Dave Haggard, the president of the IWA-Canada, and Duncan
Davies, the chairman of Forest Industrial Relations, stood on the podium and
said, "We're going to help each other," government became — and we
are today becoming — a full partner in this dispute. We do so with our eyes
wide open. We do so because, as the member for North Coast said, we need to
think about our communities. We need to think about those people that work in
this industry. We need to think about the future of this industry. We need to be
able to lead and respond and help when help is asked for, and that's what we're
doing. This is tough. It's hard.
They stand
up there and say: "Nobody's going back to work." I don't believe that
because I talked to some of those presidents on Sunday night, and they were
already calling their guys. They were already calling the companies, saying:
"We're going back to work on Monday. What have you got for us?" In
some cases, they won't be going back to work because all the machinery is under
snow at the moment. It is wintertime. In other cases, they are going back.
They're going to get the cleanup done, they're going to get ready for winter
shutdown, and they're going to tie up all their loose ends. We're used to that.
This is being done because before the holiday season sets in, I think the
workers in this province, the industry in this province and this province in
general need to know that there is some stability out there. We need to know
that there is a future. We need to know that there's a path forward. Each of
them came to us and said: "We want to get there. We want to bargain. We
want to be at the table. We just need some help." Bill 99 provides that to
us.
I am
offended by the leader of the NDP saying that this is costing $20,000 — or
whatever the number she used was — to recall the Legislature. This is about a
government that actually does care about those people. This is about a
government that actually is willing to go out there and support those people who
want to earn that first dollar that pays for everything else we do. I am proud
to defend those folks. Where were those people as they wiped out whole sections
of the industry with unworkable land use plans? Where was it
[ Page 8404 ]
when they were sidling up to the environmental movement? When the NDP sidles up to the environmental movement to encourage and promote blockades and
restrictions into our marketplaces, we do the exact opposite. We want to be
there for those folks, we want to be into new marketplaces, and we want to find
them opportunity. We want to assist, where government can assist, to give them a
future. We want to stand behind those communities and stand behind those
workers.
[1645]
This is a
difficult and challenging time in the forest industry. We are facing complex
issues in complex world markets. We have complex currency problems. We need to
find a way through this. Anytime we can, we're going to be here to help. I know
that the Labour minister has been there for other unions and other employers,
and we've managed to walk quietly through the door to an agreement. Some of
those have been in my community. This time I think we're going to do the same.
We're in the Legislature today to talk about that, to debate that and to
recognize the fact that we have a Premier, ministers, a government and members
who are willing to stand up for those workers and this industry and get it back
on its feet and moving forward.
H. Long:
I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill 99, because I think
it's one of those bills that's necessary for our small communities, our forest
communities. I notice the Labour minister, for instance, comes from a small
community that is intensely supported by the forest industry. When I start to
think of all the different MLAs in this House today, when I look around me and
see the different ones from the different parts of the province, and I see those
like myself that come from a small community that's entirely forest-based, then
to have the opposition members stand in this House — the two NDP members
coming from downtown Vancouver — telling us that we don't care about the
forest industry, the union workers and the people that live there…. It's a
bloody insult. I don't think any of us should stand for it.
The forest
workers in our community will stand up. They work hard. The forest companies
that are in our community try the best they can to supply those jobs to those
forest workers, and sometimes they do get into a dispute. Even in our own
company that we do here in our transportation system, we have over 100 union
workers. We negotiate our contracts fairly with them. They get a contract, and
they work hard. We could not do without them, and neither can the forest
industry do without the workers that do the job for them. They have more in
common than any political party in this whole province has. They're together on
this.
You know, I
look at it and wonder just how our community and the communities on the coast
impact on the Vancouver area. Most of the mills in the Vancouver area are
supplied by the logs that come from these small communities, and right now it is
those logging communities and those sawmills that are suffering. I want to see
them get back to work. I want to see the union members be able to supply their
families and their communities with the funds they need for their living.
I believe
they're looking forward to getting back to work, so much so that I think a lot
of the picket lines have already come down. They've already gone home and are
preparing to go back to work, because they know this legislation is coming.
They're looking forward to getting back to work and doing the jobs they do best
for the province and especially for their communities.
It not only
impacts on the forest industry as far as the loggers and the sawmills go. We
have in my riding two mills. Norske Canada, with a pulp mill and paper mill in
Powell River, is supplying jobs to 722 people right in our community of Powell
River. It's a major employer. We also have Howe Sound Pulp and Paper with
another 500-plus jobs on the Sunshine Coast that are dependent on those loggers.
They're running very short of the chips they need to produce their paper — so
their jobs are at stake — and of many other things that supply them — the
hog fuel for the heating and the boilers and such. So they're running very close
to having to shut down and create more unemployment.
I think the
companies and the union were very wise when they came to government and worked
with government to put an end to this strike and have some finality. Basically,
they've agreed to going to arbitration, if they have to, to settle this. Just to
give you an example of how important the forest industry is, how close to — I
guess I'd say close — some very tough financial times in the forest
industry…. This one would be in the pulp and paper mill. I got this, in fact,
today from Norske Canada.
Norske
Canada, our pulp mill, has negotiated with our municipality of Powell River
because of their tax base. The municipality of Powell River has agreed to reduce
the taxes for Norske Canada's pulp mill — to keep them alive and to keep those
jobs available — by $200,000 annually for five years and, after five years, to
reduce it by the sum of $1 million in the ensuing years. This is a real
commitment by a community to say we're going to drop your taxes, we're going to
let you work, and we're going to keep your industry alive. I think this is that
kind of commitment.
[1650]
If our
municipality is willing to do it and the government of British Columbia is
willing to work with the forest industry to help, I think that together all of
us — and I'm talking about every single MLA in this House today — have a
real concern and a real interest in making sure that the IWA people, all the
workers in the IWA, and the small communities will have in the future the
economy which they deserve. I want to wish everybody in these small communities
a merry Christmas. I hope this settles it up and that they all get back to work
and communities can count on them in the future.
Trumper: I rise to support Bill 99. As you are well aware, I come from a
region where the basic eco-
[ Page 8405 ]
nomic base is forestry. Over the last decade we have seen many changes, to
the region's detriment, over some of the policies that were laid out by the
previous government.
I want to
tell one story that is apropos to today. There was a group of students that came
up from Victoria when things were really tough in the Alberni Valley and on the
west coast after some of the changes had been made. We were told that there
would be no jobs lost due to some of the announcements made by the then Premier
of the day, Premier Harcourt. We used to have 6,000 jobs in the region in
forestry. We now, if we're lucky, might have 1,800 jobs. This group of students
came up from Victoria, and a skit was put on by the out-of-work IWA people. One
of them was a mother explaining to her son why they could not possibly afford
the $150 running shoes that you seem to see students wearing these days.
That's the
same situation in my community today. Many IWA people have been out of work —
some of them for nearly a year in one of the divisions — as they try to work
out solutions in a very difficult time in the forest industry. If you talk to
the people in the stores today, they will tell you that people are being very
careful about the amount of money they spend. It's not just because of the
labour dispute that the forestry workers are out. It means it has a domino
effect on the whole community. It has an effect on the businesses. Then it has a
larger effect on the larger community and on the province.
This
morning I listened to the Minister of Mines speaking about the huge impact that
oil and gas exploration has had on the province, which is excellent for us. But
you know, the jobs that are in the forest industry are what keep the engine of
this province going. When they're not working, there are a whole lot of other
people not working.
I recently
had, probably, more calls from individuals in the IWA who have asked and said:
"Can't the government do anything? We need to get back to work; we need to
get this settled." Yesterday when I was out and the announcement had been
made, I had people who had phoned me at home come up and say they were pleased
that this had taken place. This is the guy who has a family to support, who's
been sitting in the rain on these picket lines for the last while. All they want
to do is get back to work and be able to pay their bills.
I believe
that Duncan Davies and Dave Haggard took a tremendous step — probably not easy
for them. I know both individuals well. In fact, Dave Haggard, whenever he's at
home, is a constituent of mine. They know the difficulties that the forest
industry is in, but they were not able to get to the state where they could come
up with a process to get the negotiations going. Both of them took a large step
in asking us, the government, for assistance in getting things going. They both
knew that if we did not get discussions going again, it might be some
considerab