British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 6, 2003

H0506pm-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6523 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 6523 Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Hon. S. Hagen Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Hon. S.

Hagen Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6524 Economic development in Delta South area V. Roddick Prevention of sex crimes against children B. Belsey Mental health funding and services L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6525 Delivery of services for children and families J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Hogg Respite care beds at St. Paul's Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen B.C. Liberal Party fundraising letter P. Nettleton Hon. G. Collins Mental health and addiction information plan I. Chong Hon. G. Cheema Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6528 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) (continued) Hon. M. de Jong P. Nettleton M. Hunter J. MacPhail J. Kwan P. Sahota P. Bell R.

Harris Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 6550 Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 6551 Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

6523 TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. A guest in the gallery today is Mr. Harry Lewis, a teacher from Reynolds Secondary School. Mr. Lewis is in charge of the flexible studies program at Reynolds by which the Victoria school district 61 has, for many years, provided students to work as Pages for the Leg- islative Assembly. Harry is here to observe the work his students are doing on our behalf. I'm sure members will agree that we have received excellent service from Reynolds Sec- ondary School. Please welcome Harry Lewis. S.

Orr: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you mentioned Harry Lewis. I actually just wanted to welcome Harry back from Australia, where he was teaching for a while. He was president of the Tillicum-Gorge ratepayers asso- ciation and a very active member of the community. Welcome back, Harry, and we'll speak to you soon. [1405] Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today the mayor of the fifth-largest city in Brit- ish Columbia: from the city of Abbotsford, Mayor Mary Reeves. With her today is Mr. Gary Guthrie, the city manager. I ask the House to please make them both welcome. J.

Kwan: I have the great opportunity to introduce the two most significant people, two most significant women, in my life, who are in the precincts today. Be- fore I do that, if you would indulge me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone in this House — in fact, everyone who has sent Cee- Yan and my family well wishes and warm thoughts for her arrival. One minister actually mentioned that 25 hours of labour is worse than the estimates process.

For the op- position caucus, let me tell you, it is actually worse than the 24-hour emergency debates that this govern- ment would like to keep bringing on. There's only one difference, though. The end result is much more grati- fying. Cee-Yan is wonderful. She is in the precincts today with my mother, downstairs in my office. Would the House please make welcome the two most signifi- cant women in my life. Hon. C. Hansen: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 21 grade 10 students from St. George's Sec- ondary School in Vancouver. They're here with their teachers, Mr. Stephen Ziff and Mr. Neil Piller.

Will the House please make them all very welcome. L. Mayencourt: I t m u s t b e a d a y f o r s t u d e n t s t o visit us here in the precincts. I'm very proud that I have 11 students from King George high school in my con- stituency who are here visiting the Legislature. They're joined by Susan Gerofsky, who is their teacher, and Teresa Goode and Janet Collette, who are parents.

These students are part of the city school program t h a t ' s o f f e r e d a t K i n g G e o r g e h i g h s c h o o l t o s t u d e n t s from around the city of Vancouver as an alternative program, an enriched program, for kids that really do excel. I'm very proud to have them here, so would the House please make them all feel welcome. R. Stewart: Today visiting the Legislature is the Bethany Chorale from Bethany College in Saskatche- wan.

I had the immense pleasure, along with other members, staff and visitors, to hear the majestic voices of this chorale raised in song over the noon hour in the legislative rotunda. They are on a tour of various B.C. communities and will be performing this evening in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills TRANSMISSION CORPORATION ACT Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transmis- sion Corporation Act. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that Bill 39, Transmission Corporation Act, be read a first time now.

Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 39, the Transmission Corporation Act. The Transmission Cor- poration Act enshrines in legislation the British Co- lumbia Transmission Corporation. As part of our en- ergy plan commitments, we are creating this new cor- poration to efficiently manage B.C. Hydro's transmis- sion grid. The bill is a positive step forward in imple- menting the province's energy plan, a plan designed to deliver the lowest-possible electricity rates, a secure and reliable supply of energy and more private sector opportunities — all in an environmentally responsible way.

Our government made a new-era promise to the people of British Columbia that they would continue to own and benefit from B.C. Hydro's core assets. Today I'm pleased to announce we are delivering on that commitment. Today's legislation establishes the British Columbia Transmission Corporation as a Crown- owned corporation that will be regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission and that cannot be sold.

The his- toric investments and electricity assets have been pro- tected for British Columbians. [1410] Creating this new publicly owned corporation helps achieve our energy plan goal of keeping electric- ity rates low by ensuring that ratepayers continue to benefit from electricity trade, and it will ensure that we continue to receive trade revenues to help pay for the

6524 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 education and health care services that all British Co- lumbians hold dear. The Transmission Corporation Act will encourage private sector investment in new generation and en- ergy industry growth. Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps secure British Columbia's low-cost energy advan- tage to build on our strengths and helps revitalize the economy and create jobs. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that Bill 40 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 40, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

These amendments modernize the Utilities Commission Act and are a positive step forward in implementing the province's new energy plan, a plan that will deliver low electricity prices, a secure and reliable supply of energy, more private sector opportunities and envi- ronmental responsibility. The act will go a long way in ensuring efficient regulations of B.C. utilities, which is necessary to en- sure that public utilities deliver low-cost energy and are able to reliably serve domestic needs. These amendments will also streamline the existing regula- tions.

Bill 40 will facilitate the development of domestic energy sources. Electricity distributors are required to acquire a new supply on a least-cost basis, with regula- tory oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The act has been amended to encourage utility in- vestment that supports environmentally sustainable responsibility through conservation and energy effi- ciency. The act modernizes British Columbia's regula- tory structure, streamlines regulations and introduces a framework for customer protection and choice. These legislative changes will benefit customers.

By securing a low-cost energy advantage, British Colum- bia can build on its strengths to help revitalize the economy and create jobs through private sector par- ticipation. The bill I'm introducing today demonstrates our government's commitment to strengthen the Brit- ish Columbia Utilities Commission to benefit all British Columbians. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN DELTA SOUTH AREA V. Roddick: Delta South is the constituency through which everyone travels to get where they're going. As a result, our community is faced with mak- ing plans and decisions which will impact our neighbourhoods forever. It is imperative that everyone work together — volunteer community groups, business associations, industrial parks and all three levels of government. Growing and building a stronger community can only be achieved by working together positively.

There are excellent business opportunities which will gain the services and quality of life that we strive for and of which we can be proud. Here are just a few of those opportunities available to Delta: the B.C.

Ferry terminal improvement plans; Vancouver Port Corpora- tion, Roberts Bank expansion; Tsawwassen first nations treaty process and economic development; Ladner fish- ing harbour; agriculture, Delta's largest single industry; Delta municipal bylaws; Boundary Bay Airport; and, knitting all of this together, a traffic infrastructure absolutely second to none. [1415] Individual, neighbourhood, community and pro- v i nc i al t hi nk i ng c a p s m u s t b e p u t o n i n o rd e r t o d e - velop and ensure locally designed solutions.

I will continue to work with the community and to bring ideas forward to this Legislature and to this govern- ment. As our community is doing with Delta Hospi- tal, if we work together positively and with determi- nation, we can achieve great things. United, we will succeed. PREVENTION OF SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN B. Belsey: I rise today to talk about a new advocacy group in Prince Rupert, the Concerned Citizens Against Sex Crimes to Children, or CCASCC. This group of ordinary community-minded citizens is work- ing to find solutions to protect children from sexual exploitation.

It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child. However, it takes an entire community to protect them. Not every family is in the position or has the resources to protect their children during those most vulnerable years. Therefore, society must be prepared to work together with these families that cannot. It is

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6525 only by working together that we can protect chil- dren from these social problems. Too often the peo- ple who commit these crimes have been victims themselves as children, and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken. Two weeks ago I met with the co-founder of CCASCC in my constituency office, where we dis- cussed the important role citizens and governments play in protecting vulnerable children.

I am looking forward to working with the organization and know, through constructive dialogue with Concerned Citi- zens Against Sex Crimes to Children, that our efforts will benefit those most in need. In closing, let me say the success in eliminating the exploitation of children in this or any other community will be measured by the presence of justice and the absence of fear. MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING AND SERVICES L. Mayencourt: A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a West End Neighbours in Action meeting on mental health services in our community.

I wanted to take a few moments, since this is Mental Health Week, to highlight some of the achievements of the government in dealing with this important issue. In the past year our government provided $15 mil- lion to strengthen community mental health services, and this year we added another $18 million to our health plan commitment. Our government has commit- ted $138 million to upgrade facilities and replace the aging Riverview facility in Coquitlam. As part of that project, we've already opened facilities in Coquitlam, Prince George, Saanich and Kamloops — with more to come in the next few years.

For the first time in B.C. history, we have put men- tal health together with addiction services, integrating those programs to serve patients in British Columbia more effectively. The government has released several best-practices documents to improve mental health planning, including peer support and support for fami- lies, and our Premier announced several programs to deal with depression strategies and anxiety disorders. The government released Canada's first compre- hensive child and youth mental health plan recently.

This plan will go a long way to building a better capac- ity of services to improve the lives of young people that live with mental illness. On Sunday the Minister of State for Mental Health announced the development of the B.C. partners for mental health and addictions information. By prudent management of all ministries, we are providing more dollars towards mental health services in this province than ever before.

We are strengthening community services, we are creating networks of care, we are building modern and updated facilities, and we are implementing best practices — all in the interest of serving this vulnerable group of British Columbia citi- zens. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions DELIVERY OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES J.

MacPhail: My questions follow up from the statement from the member for North Coast. [1420] The Minister of Children and Family Development has spent two years working on a scheme to devolve child protection to regional governing authorities, but that plan, as we're learning every day, is quickly spin- ning out of control. Service providers, concerned par- ents and the outgoing children's commissioner have been saying for months, along with the opposition, that it's impossible to implement a 23 percent budget cut as part of this restructuring scheme.

The opposition has learned that the minister's own interim authorities are balking at the cuts, refusing to implement the orders. The auditor general is investigating. As of yesterday we received a memo from the service providers and advocates stating that the ministry didn't meet its b u d g e t l a s t y e a r , t h a t i t ' s g o i n g t o h a v e t o r e d o t h e budget and that the legislation is on hold. That's as of today. Can the minister explain why funding for kids at risk is being cut as his grand plans for a new child pro- tection regime in B.C. unravel? Hon. G.

Hogg: The ministry did meet its budget last year — in fact, met it and provided funds to build on top of that in a number of areas. The ministry is looking at and continues to look at the service plan and the targets that we have within it. There are significant challenges in terms of the service delivery model and the 23 percent cut, which the member made reference to. We have been involved in the most extensive con- sultative process that this ministry — and, in fact, this government — has ever seen with respect to provision of social services. People across this province have been active participants in that.

We met last weekend with a number of the chairs of the planning committees across this province, and they have — to a person, abo- riginal and non-aboriginal — committed to the targets we have set in terms of the funding models that we're working toward. We are continuing to go review those. We've learned a lot in the past two years. We've learned a lot about what we have inherited from the past government and the focus and direction we have to go. We are still going forward in a very positive way. We will meet those budget targets.

We will be able to have a plan that services and responds to the needs of communities in a much more proactive way and that is responsive to the nuances of the needs of various communities in this province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, the minister's right on one fact. Yes, his ministry officials did meet with service provid-

6526 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 ers last weekend. Here's what his officials told them. The Ministry of Children and Family Development did not meet its budget targets for '02-03 because the reduc- tions of the number of children in care did not meet the targets set by the government. Maybe they made their budget cuts, but they didn't get their service cuts. Here's why: there are enough children who need child protection, and therefore they couldn't make their tar- geted cuts.

The entire scheme set up by this government was based on the premise that communities could provide the same child protection services for 20 percent less with this new regional model. That's the argument the minister has used over and over again when he's con- fronted with how he can achieve his budget cuts. Well, the Finance minister has put this project on hold because of financial concerns, so that argument's gone.

This minister is going to have to come clean and admit, finally, that a 23 percent budget cut in his minis- try means lost services and less protection for kids at risk — the very people the member for North Coast is now advocating on behalf of. Will the minister finally stand up and tell us what services will be gone because his reorganization of pro- tection in kids services is in complete disarray? Who is going to be further at risk now? Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, this government's priority has been, is and will continue to be the health and safety of children within this province.

Secondly, there was an increase of 60 percent in terms of the number of children that came into the care of the state in this province over the past eight years — a 60 percent in- crease, well above the national average of the number of children in care. Every bit of good social work practice tells us that the best way we can support children is within the con- text of their families, their extended families and the community — every bit of research. In fact, perhaps ironically — without using any props — I have re- search that supports that, which has been done around the world.

We are moving in a very progressive way to a community-based response model, which will allow us to respond more effectively to the nuances and needs within the context of the community and provide pro- tection within that context. That's the direction and the way that all of the best evidence tells us we should be going, and that's the direction and the focus that this government has taken. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. [1425] J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister's own offi- cials aren't telling him what's going on. Here's the other news that's revealed in this e-mail.

The legislation to put in place the new authorities has been delayed for all of the authorities, including the provincial commu- nity board, the regional authorities and the aboriginal authorities — delayed. Here's what's that says. Now, the minister was forced to admit in estimates debate that he spent $25 million in transition funding for this new scheme that's now delayed — $25 million that could have gone to protect children at risk and support child and family development programs. What does the minister have to show for it? Delay, having to redo his budget, not meeting his targets.

Everything possible has gone wrong, and $25 million wasted. Re- sistance inside and out of government, massive confu- sion and uncertainty, a ministry service plan that's un- der review and is now going to be done, investigations by the auditor general, and more cuts still to come. If the minister insists on pushing ahead despite this mess he's creating, can he tell us how much more money that should go to treating kids, protecting kids, is instead going to the botched transition process, to the new regime that's already wasted $25 million? Hon. G.

Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the service plan the member made reference to, there was a reduc- tion of some 1,000 children in care in the past year, which is consistent with the service plan as it was put forward. In terms of those numbers, we were right on with respect to that. With respect to the transition process we've been involved in, we have focused and continue to focus our dollars around the issues of health and safety. To that end, we've increased by $10 million the amount of money going into family development, which is to sup- port those people who come into care.

The member may not be aware, but 65 percent of the children coming into the care of the state have been coming in, under the past government, from single parents who were on income assistance. In many instances, they need a bit of support rather than to be taken into the care of the state. We're moving forward in terms of being able to respond to the community response to that. We're meeting with people around this province and looking at the service plan.

We've learned a great deal in the course of the past two years, and we need to ensure that we're applying what we've learned in a good, evidence-based way to ensure that the focus and d i r e c t i o n w e g o i n i s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e . W e ' v e g o t t o build capacity in the community, and we're doing that through the dollars we're putting into communities to build that capacity for them to respond to it. RESPITE CARE BEDS AT ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL J. Kwan: This week is National Hospice Palliative Care Week.

Will the Minister of Health Services use this opportunity to announce that he's going to reverse his government's cold-hearted decision to close respite b e d s at S t . P au l ' s H o s p i t al f o r p e rs o n s wi t h A I D S an d others who are living with terminal illnesses? Hon. C. Hansen: I am actually very proud of the work that's been done by my colleague the Minister of

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6527 State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care around palliative care strategy. It is actually the first time in this province that we've ever been able to move to a comprehensive approach that's provincewide in- stead of the patchwork of palliative care initiatives we had seen up to two years ago. There is certainly main- tenance of the palliative care support that's in place. Also, as the member will know, part of the increased federal funding that will flow is being designated for palliative care.

I see that over the years to come, we will be able to expand that program in the context of a provincewide framework that provides consistency throughout the province. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The reality is this: respite beds at St. Paul's are a critical part of continuing care for persons with AIDS. Advocates in the health care professions say this decision to close beds — and that's what this govern- ment is doing: closing beds — is catastrophic and is a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f b u d g e t c u t s .

T h e y s a y i t ' s p e n n y - w i s e and pound foolish. St. Paul's is being forced to cut some $200,000 this year alone to meet its budget. How can this minister stand up today, day after day, and say he's protecting health care? He said the beds are com- i n g , w h e n a t t h e s a m e t i m e w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g r i g h t now is that he's cutting the beds at St. Paul's for people with AIDS. Does he not consider these beds to be part of the health care system? [1430] Hon. C. Hansen: I think that the member…. Well, I was going to say she should know.

Maybe she doesn't know, but if she doesn't know, I'll inform her that this government made a significant investment in the new Dr. Peter Centre in Vancouver, which will actually provide for additional services for AIDS patients in British Columbia. I would also like to point out to this member that this government added $1.1 billion to the health budget in this province.

We are seeing a reorganization of health care in terms of how it can be delivered and where those services can be delivered so that we can better meet the needs of patients, whether they're in the middle of downtown Vancouver or whether they're in smaller communities in the heartland regions of the province. B.C. LIBERAL PARTY FUNDRAISING LETTER P. Nettleton: I remember a number of years ago at the Oscar awards ceremony when an outsider at that time, Sally Field, was presented an Oscar. Overcome by the shock of being accepted, she blurted out: "You like me.

You really, really like me." Well, today I also feel like I've been nominated for an Oscar, not for my acting — although some of you may differ — but because in my mail this morning I received a letter that demonstrates conclusively I'm still a part of the B.C. Liberal team. The letter came from none less than Kelly Reichert, the executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party, urging me "to make a financial contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party today…" Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the member now please put his question. P. Nettleton: I will.

"…so that the clock isn't turned back on the pro- gress our team is continuing to make." Yes, Kelly, I want to do my

part in fighting the special interest groups too. Just show me where to sign up. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Will the mem- ber put his question now. P. Nettleton: Absolutely. You all know I'm a team player, and this letter proves it. Perhaps the Minister of Finance…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. P. Nettleton: My question to the Minister of Fi- nance is: perhaps he could tell me where to make the cheque payable and how much. After this letter I'm feeling really generous. And you like me; you really, really like me. Hon. G.

Collins: I know that the party awaits the member's generous contribution. MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION INFORMATION PLAN I. Chong: This past Sunday I participated in the offi- cial launch for the beginning of Rick Casey's bicycle ride across Canada, which is being called "The Miles for Mental Health." The purpose of Mr. Casey's journey is to raise awareness around the issues of mental health. Recently the government announced a development of an information plan for mental health and addictions.

Can the Minister of State for Mental Health explain why we need such an information plan, what it is supposed to accomplish and how this information will be available to serve all the people of British Columbia? Hon. G. Cheema: O n S u n d a y w e a n n o u n c e d t h e development of the B.C. partners for mental health and addiction information. The goal of this information plan is to establish a single reliable source for people in B.C. to consult for credible and useful information on mental health and addiction issues.

This partnership includes representation from all provincial mental health organizations, the Ministry of Health and UBC. It's truly groundbreaking to see all these provincial

6528 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 agencies working together to bring their experience, expertise and community ties to the table. [1435] The theme of this year's Mental Health Week is mental health literacy, and this plan will help to build mental health literacy. The primer is the first project of the mental health and addiction plan. The information from this plan needs to reach as many British Columbi- ans as possible, and the partnership is presently look- ing at translating the primer into other languages, in- cluding Chinese and Punjabi.

This is truly a remarkable achievement in this province. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 29. Second Reading of Bills FOREST (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) Hon. M. de Jong: T h i s i s t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a second reading debate that began a couple of days ago. At that time I laid out for the House some of the rationale behind this, which is one of a series of bills that represent the cornerstone of our forest revitaliza- tion strategy.

I spent some time talking about the principles that underlie the entire strategy and how they are reflected in this piece of legislation. I spoke about the objectives and the themes — the three, ac- tually, that relate to maximizing or creating new op- portunities for British Columbians to be involved in the forest sector.

I spoke about getting the right log to the right processing facility, maximizing the value of the fibre we harvest and, lastly, ensuring that we cre- ate a structure in which British Columbians who own the resource can be satisfied they are receiving an adequate and fair market-based return for the re- source they sell to operators, to licensees, and that licensees can be confident they are paying a fair mar- ket-based price for the timber they are purchasing access to.

Within the bill I want to talk about two features that I think are important and that are captured within the context of this bill, which, though not particularly lengthy volume-wise, do in fact represent something of a seminal departure for the management of our forest resource within British Columbia.

I talked last day at some length about the rationale behind altering the timber processing and appurtenancy provisions that h a v e h i s t o r i c a l l y b e e n p a r t o f f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t p o l - icy in British Columbia and captured within the provi- sions of the existing Forest Act. [1440] Today I'd like to spend just a few moments talking about two remaining features that are dealt with in this legislation. One is cut control.

For those British Colum- bians who may be less familiar with some of the termi- nology, cut control in its basic form speaks to the re- strictions and requirements we place around those who are granted harvesting rights in British Columbia. Maximum cut control is something that everyone gets, because it is the mechanism — the tool we use — by which we regulate against overharvesting. People will know that the chief forester, based on the application of scientific methodology, sets a maximum annual allow- able cut. That occurs within the timber supply areas that exist within British Columbia.

That annual allow- able cut is divided up amongst various licensees. Maximum cut control ensures that when a licence is granted, people don't overharvest, and that if they do, they pay very serious penalties, indeed, for so doing. It is the mechanism by which we ensure that we have sustainable forestry in British Columbia now, next week, next year and 100 years into the future, which is the time frame one needs to apply when measuring sound forest management practices. It is, however, the flip side of that coin that has en- gaged much debate and attention when we talk about cut control.

That is minimum cut control. That is the provision by which the Crown — the owner, on behalf of British Columbians, of the resource — has said to licensees: "Not only are we going to ensure, as we logi- cally should, that you do not overcut the harvest rates that you have been granted, we are actually, by virtue of statute and regulation, going to require that you harvest a minimum amount." There are historical rea- sons around which that policy has developed.

I think you can make a sound argument that there is a sound rationale behind the submission that says: "If you are granted the right to harvest timber owned by the peo- ple of British Columbia and you do not harvest that timber, then we are going to provide it to someone who will exercise that option." Something else developed around the notion of minimum cut control, and that was a penalty provi- sion.

The penalty provision said that if you do not ex- ercise your right to harvest, then you will be penalized — not by losing rights to the timber that you chose not to harvest but by losing rights moving forward into the future. It is that specific aspect of cut control that has puzzled me and troubled me. What it says to people operating in this business is that we — "we" being the state — are going to punish you for making decisions based on sound economics. It's not a lot more complicated than this. The products that are produced as a result of the harvesting of tim- ber are sold on the market.

If the person who harvests the timber can't sell the logs or the product that those logs get turned into at a price that recoups the cost of harvesting that timber in the first place, they're going to lose money. Yet under the present regime — one that has been in place for a number of years — we compel people, companies large and small…. This isn't just a large licensee issue; this is an issue that touches on everyone that enjoys the right to harvest timber in British Columbia. We compel them to engage in that

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6529 harvesting activity when we know full well — and they know full well — t h a t t h e y w i l l l o s e m o n e y . I t doesn't make sense. We have signalled, in clear terms — and began sig- nalling over a year and a half ago when I began talking about this — that we are interested in making changes, that we are interested in dealing with those provisions that — nonsensically, in my view — would purport to penalize people for engaging in sound economic man- agement.

I have looked far and wide to find another business and searched far and wide to locate a business person who believes it makes sense to be compelled to do things that lose money. [1445] Correcting that anomaly, correcting or dealing with that issue is what lies at the heart of the provisions of this bill that deal with cut control. What we are saying is that if you are provided with the right to harvest timber in British Columbia…. Let's use some figures.

If it is 50,000 cubic metres a year, then at the end of the day you have to make some deci- sions around whether or not you can harvest that amount economically, sell the product, recoup your costs. If you can't, ultimately you risk going bankrupt. We are going to give you the flexibility that heretofore has been denied you to make those decisions. If you decide at the end of the day that you cannot harvest those 50,000 — or 45,000, as per the existing requirement that compels you to harvest 90 percent over a cut control period….

If you decide on the basis of the application of sound economic analysis that you can't harvest that product without losing a significant amount of money, then we won't penalize you moving forward. You will retain the right to harvest that vol- ume moving forward as per the conditions of your licence. What you will lose is access to that undercut vol- ume, because in addition to the cut control require- ments, there have been provisions that allow compa- nies to make application for the carry forward. It hap- pens today. Companies today make economic deci- sions.

If the market is so bad, no matter what the law says, companies decide: "We're not going to harvest. We are going to run afoul of our cut control requirements, and we will apply to carry forward that undercut vol- ume." All kinds of subjective considerations come into play when the Crown has to then step in and decide whether or not to authorize that undercut carry forward. We're going to change that. That option won't exist.

The licensee will have a degree of flexibility, but the consequences of exercising that flexibility are that if an undercut volume results, that volume will be available for other participants in forestry. I think it's an eminently defensible position to take and an eminently defensible approach to ensuring that our industry is conducting itself in accordance with basic, sound economic principles. If someone wants to alert me to another business, another industry that has flourished by embracing unsound economic principles, I'm all ears. But I haven't found one yet, and I haven't heard of one yet.

That represents a fundamental feature of what is captured within the context of Bill 29.

The last feature to this piece of legislation that I wanted to spend a little bit of time on relates to some- thing that hasn't attracted a huge amount of attention, but that in the long run I think is going to have some profoundly positive consequences and impacts on this industry. [1450] Part of the reality of practising forestry and particu- larly being involved in the harvesting sector of B.C.'s forest economy for certainly the last 50 years and perhaps even longer is the fact that you are compelled to deal exclusively with the Crown.

There is a degree of logic in that; the Crown owns the timber on behalf of the people of British Columbia. In addition to that, it has struck me that a number of the regulations that are in place and that have evolved and developed over the years have done a great deal to curtail what might otherwise be a very healthy flow of fibre within British Columbia.

I will say a g a i n , a s I s a i d w h e n w e w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s d e b a t e several days ago, that none of what is contained within the provisions of Bill 29 does anything to remove or alter the restrictions that presently exist around the export of timber harvested off of Crown lands.

I t has s t ru c k m e as v e ry o d d t hat whe n t wo l i c e n- sees — and again, I'm not necessarily talking about two large corporations; they could be small licensees or independent, family-owned businesses — decide they may wish to negotiate a transaction for the purchase and sale of a licence they own, their ability to conclude that transaction is put very much in doubt by the num- ber of obstacles the Forest Act and regulations pres- ently place in their path.

I will say and acknowledge up front that the provi- sions of this bill are designed to facilitate the ability that licensees have within the province to buy and sell directly licence interests. It goes further than that. It occurred to me when I was discussing these matters with British Columbians over the last year and a half that what they also sought was the ability to subdivide licences that are presently held and sell a portion of those licences to someone who may be better equipped to harvest in a particular area, may be better equipped or have a greater demand for a particular species.

Of course, what we're confronted with under the present legislative regime is that when you think of all of the people that a purchaser and a seller might want to go and talk to before completing or concluding a transaction of the sort that I'm talking about — they might need to talk to their banker; they may need to talk to their accountant; they may need to talk to their lawyer; they probably have to talk to all of those peo- ple — the person that the existing legislation requires them to talk to is the Forests minister, because the For- ests minister has to approve that transaction.

I'm not certain what it is that qualifies any Forests minister, and I include myself in that description, to render an opinion on the business or economic efficacy of that transaction. Now, I do believe the Forests minis- ter and the Forest Service and the Crown have a legiti-

6530 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 mate interest in issues around forest health. That is preserved. That is preserved within the context of these proposed statutory provisions. But this notion that a basic transaction, selling a licence between a willing buyer and a willing seller, must first pass economic scrutiny through the minister is, I think, a flawed logic.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , o f c o u r s e w e h a v e b u i l t s o m e additional disincentives into this exercise, because over the last number of years previous governments have developed a provision whereby if you want to engage in that kind of transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the Crown takes back 5 percent of what's involved in the transaction. Well, there's a real incentive to develop economic opportunities within the forest sector. If you're going to close the deal, part of the price of so doing is that you've got to surrender 5 percent to the Crown.

Then a whole other bureaucratic process developed around circumventing those provi- sions. Well, we are simplifying that component of prac- tising forestry in British Columbia. [1455] I have heard expressions of concern, and the one that I think makes a degree of sense relates to the fact that in parts of British Columbia, there are concerns around the issue of concentration of ownership. If you are building a forest policy around the notion of com- petition and an active market, in order to have an ac- tive market, you've got to have competition.

If the tim- ber rights are all owned in a particular region by a sin- gle licensee, you've got a problem. That's why we have included specific provisions within Bill 29 to allow the Crown to maintain a review function with an eye to ensuring that there are ade- quate levels of competition. That is a key feature to the fundamental changes that are included within the pro- visions of Bill 29.

You know, I think this is a provision that over the longer term is going to reshape the forest sector in a hugely positive way, because it provides another outlet for licensees who are seeking to access timber and who heretofore have had no choice but to go deal with the Crown. Some people have said to me: "Well, who's going to sell their timber rights?" Well, in business sometimes you sell because you want to, because the price is right. Sometimes you sell because you have to. One person's challenge is another person's opportunity.

The obsta- c l e s t h a t h a v e s t o o d i n t h e w a y o f a l l o w i n g p e o p l e t o capitalize on those opportunities are disappearing. I think it is a change that is going to provide significant new opportunities to people. I am already aware, since the introduction of this bill, of discussions that are tak- ing place where licensees or people that might want to be licensees are planning to take advantage and make offers. Who knows if those offers will come to fruition? But people are planning around the use of this instru- ment to create for themselves new opportunities within forestry.

That is a fundamental guiding principle to what this trilogy of legislation is designed to encourage and foster on our way to revitalizing the forest sector. We are, I know, going to have a healthy debate and discussion around a number of the provisions in this bill. We started that yesterday and earlier today with respect to another one of the bills. They are, by any measure, significant changes. They are the product of extensive discussions with stakeholders all over the province, and they represent and they are and they have been shaped and guided by those discussions.

At the end of the day, they represent my belief and the government's belief that if we are to once again see British Columbia's number one industry firing on all eight cylinders, we have to be prepared, as we are by virtue of this legislation, to deal with some fundamen- tal issues. [1500] If we are serious about wanting to create new op- portunities for new entrants into the forest sector, we have to be prepared to deal with those statutory im- pediments that have historically prevented them from doing so, just as we, if we are serious about wanting to create new opportunities for people like first nations, h a v e t o b e p r e p a r e d , f i r s t l y , t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t i s impossible to do that without addressing the current allocation of fibre.

If we are serious about wanting to ensure that the right log is getting to the right process- ing facility such that we maximize the value of that s t i c k o f t i m b e r , w e h a v e t o b e p r e p a r e d , i f t h a t i s o u r objective, to address longstanding policies that funda- mentally preclude that from happening. There are people who will say it is sound policy to require that a tree harvested here must go to a mill to become a 2-by-4. I am not one of those people.

I am one of those people who believes that if that tree can realize a greater value by going to another facility within Brit- ish Columbia for which it is better suited as a value- added product, that's where it should go, and that the jobs that creates are important and will add to the secu- rity our forest-dependent heartland communities need to have, want to have and deserve to have. That, after all, is why we do this.

We didn't wake up one day and think to ourselves: "Gee, wouldn't it be interesting and wouldn't it be fun to fundamentally rewrite 50 years of forest policy management in British Columbia?" We're doing it as a government because it has to be done. No matter where you go in British Co- lumbia, there is an acknowledgment that it has to be done. Yes, there's a discussion about the individual features of the change, but in meetings with thousands of British Columbians in public forums, when I ask this question, "Who is satisfied with the status quo?" in all of those meetings one person put up their hand.

People understand in their hearts that change is required. People understand that policies that were designed to address the situation that existed 50 years ago are not accomplishing the job in 2003. This industry remains our backbone. The changes contained within Bill 29 are big changes. They are a cornerstone to a revitalization plan that I think the government believes will return a sense of hope, a sense of future, for all of those heartland communities that rely on forestry.

Of course, to all those British Co- lumbians who believe it is an issue for someone else's town, I hope they understand — and I believe they

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6531 understand — that without a forest industry firing on all eight cylinders, all of us suffer. The services we ex- pect, in whatever community we live, are tied very much to the overall performance of that industry. This is the product of a great deal of consultation and a great deal of involvement by my colleagues here in this House. They have helped to shape this legisla- tive approach to reform and revitalization. They have spent countless hours ensuring that the views of their constituents are heard via any number of committees that have been struck.

They have brought those views to Victoria, as they should, to help guide the develop- ment of this seminal change in forest management pol- icy. [1505] This industry has built British Columbia, and it will continue to build British Columbia. Bill 29, which I am happy to commend to this House, represents a catalyst that will accelerate that process and get the engine that drives B.C.'s economy firing once again on all eight cylinders. P. Nettleton: I'm pleased today to speak on second reading of Bill 29, the Forest (Revitalization) Amend- ment Act, 2003.

There is a lot in this bill, just as there is a lot to this whole set of changes, and I'll raise today a few concerns relating to this bill that we have before us. Bill 29, as the minister has indicated, would end timber-processing requirements. This is, as some de- scribe, the social contract of forestry. This is what re- quired timber to be processed in designated sawmills, in local sawmills, for those of us who live in communi- ties that are forest dependent. The main industry, cer- tainly in many of these resource-dependent towns, in fact is sawmills.

It protected jobs, and not just any jobs but particular jobs in particular communities. This timber-processing requirement helps to keep some small towns alive, but that does not appear to be the goal, at least in the short term, of Bill 29. There has, because of this, been some talk about the impact of forest communities on Vancouver Island, where nu- merous mills are expected to shut down. That will be tough in those communities — tough for those workers and tough for those families. So, too, the same could occur in the north.

When you spread the $75 million or so in transition assistance across the province, I don't expect it will go that far to help displaced forest workers wherever they live. It could never equal the benefits and, more important, the sense of worth of someone working in the industry, of a forester being gainfully employed in the forest industry. That's a major concern of mine. As well, there is a further possible impact of ending the timber-processing requirements. If the timber doesn't have to be processed locally, where indeed will it be processed?

In British Columbia, hopefully, we will not see — and the minister has made, again, some ref- erence to this today — a deluge of raw logs headed overseas to the detriment of local mills and value- added manufacturers. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] With this big push in British Columbia and else- where to crack open the market for wood products in places like China and all the efforts going toward that from the federal and provincial governments here….

With this big push on to teach China what to do with wood, how to build with wood and how to make things with wood, then surely in the long term we can imagine that businesses in China would be seeking, in fact, raw logs, not finished products. This indeed would hurt British Columbians. Also, surely in the long term we can imagine that the Chinese companies would take our raw logs, cut and hammer and glue them into a finished product and then sell them back to us here in British Columbia. They would do this likely at a lower price than we could offer ourselves.

We would see no "Made in B.C." imprint on the finished product. That would hurt B.C. as well, with Bill 29 ending timber-processing require- ments. [1510] The bill will also allow companies with forest li- cences to freely sell or subdivide those licences as they choose. This would purportedly have the effect of pro- viding tenure holders with a new option in terms of accessing fibre instead of going to the Crown. Fine.

I am concerned, however, that by allowing the selling of these licences, the opportunity would be created that would open the door to monopoly — if not right across British Columbia, perhaps in a region of the province. We have to wait and see, wait and hope, that provincial oversight will prevent such a monopoly. The legisla- tion before us provides no such assurances. We have to hope that in doing this oversight, all those affected are consulted by this government. Let's examine for a moment the track record on this. The forest package of reforms was announced in a se- cret location.

We have first nations in the north ready- ing their legal briefs to fight these changes because they feel they have not had adequate input into these changes and these bills presently before us, including Bill 29. We also have many front-line forest workers sitting down with their families wondering and dis- cussing what the future might hold for forestry in this province and also, of course, for them, their families and their communities. The uncertainty, as these ex- amples show, remains. Forestry is complex. Perhaps it is a bit like rocket science.

There may be unintended consequences not foreseen by these proposed changes. There may be new developments that require adjustments over time to these changes. There may be, as I believe, a need for this government to get its hands a bit more dirty, to roll up its sleeves and get into the northern communities, get onto the reserves and talk with the people there to see what they have to say — regularly. This means taking the time to get it right. While the government has the best of intentions with the forestry revitalization agenda, I can conclude by saying that they can improve upon the way they

6532 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 have developed and realized those intentions. They can improve upon the way they have developed their goals for what they would like forestry to look like in this province. It's a two-way street that will bring the best forest industry we can expect to have and benefit from. Deputy Speaker: Members, we're just going to take about a five-minute recess. The member for Nanaimo. Are you ready to speak on second reading? M. Hunter: Sorry, a few technical glitches at this end of the chamber. I rise to speak in support of Bill 29.

I'm speaking on this bill, recognizing that it is part of a whole series of important reforms that this government has introduced to bring new vitality to our most important industrial sector. I chose to speak on this bill rather than its com- panions because I think this bill is perhaps the one that introduces the most fundamental and far-reaching re- forms around forestry reform. I believe that this bill and its companions, taken together, represent some of the more far-reaching and fundamental reforms that this Legislature will undertake in its life span.

These changes have been described by some as generational reform. I think that is a very apt descrip- tion, because as the minister himself has said in intro- ducing this bill, we are changing conditions around the business of forestry that have been in effect for longer than most of us have been on this planet, let alone been in British Columbia. You know, for a person like me who spent his working life before this profession in the seafood busi- ness, I thought that the seafood business was compli- cated — as indeed it is — but this business is even m o r e c o m p l e x .

S o f o r g i v e m e i f I k i n d o f s k a t e o v e r some rather difficult concepts. I am trying to learn as I go, and I think in the last two years I have gained some insights about this industry that can help this debate. [1515] It's almost trite to say that forestry has a huge impact on the economy of British Columbia, but, you know, it's a fact that ought to be repeated over and over again, because people tend to forget.

Even in my riding of Nanaimo, where forestry and its associated service and support sectors provide about 30 percent of incomes, the forest industry, because of its location in our commu- nity, tends to be taken for granted, forgotten…. I don't know what it is. I don't think that even in Nanaimo, a former resource community, the forest industry is really understood or appreciated by my constituents. It's be- cause of the importance of the industry that I under- stand in my corner of B.C…..

It makes it important that I take this opportunity to speak on the reforms that this bill introduces and, as I said, the others. I talked about learning things about forestry. I've learned a lot. Just in the last month I've learned much about the enthusiasm of just one small woodlot owner in Nanaimo — a man with a 30-acre piece of property, who I swear knows the name of every tree and its life history in great detail. That kind of care and husbandry is, I think, very valuable and irreplaceable.

We need to make those kinds of people — because I know my con- stituent isn't the only one who feels that way about his trees — part of our industry in the future. I've also, in the last few months, learned a great deal about the determination of the larger private land owners. We have a number of very large private land owners, as you know, on southeast Vancouver Island. I've learned much about their determination and the determination of tenure holders to turn our forests into a new era of prosperity. I've learned about professional care and husbandry and how important that is to the industry.

Let it be very clear that those who would argue that this industry is not environmentally sound simply haven't taken a look. I've also learned about the tenacity, the determina- tion, the business savvy and the problems of the manu- facturing sector. I think it's clear from all of those peo- ple and the people who work in the forests and in the manufacturing facilities — I think they would agree with the minister — we need new prosperity in the forest industry. I was intrigued — I guess a little bit amused — when a week or so ago the vice-president for British Columbia of Weyerhaeuser, Mr.

Craig Neeser, was meeting with a few MLAs, and he told us that he had been preparing for a speech. He had gone back to a 1932 speech given by Mr. H.R. MacMillan, an icon of British Columbia. Mr. MacMillan's speech talked about issues facing the forestry industry 71 years ago. There were problems with trade issues. The United States had imposed a $4-per-thousand-board-foot tax, I believe it was, on British Columbia lumber products. The costs in the industry, according to Mr. MacMillan, were too high.

In terms of markets, he was very concerned about Russian imports pushing Canadian–B.C. products out of the U.K. market. Here we are 70 years later — a growth cycle in most parts of British Columbia — and one could say we are facing the same problems that H.R. MacMillan identi- fied so many years ago. I think right now the reforms we are proposing are not only fundamental, but they are critical. I say they are critical because I put a lot of credit in the analysis that Dr. Peter Pearse gave us with respect to the coastal forest sector in his report back in November of 2001.

I think he laid it out extremely clearly that we have some fundamental, critical prob- l e m s t h a t n e e d t o b e a d d r e s s e d . W h i l e h i s r e m a r k s were limited to the coastal industry, because that was what he was asked to look at, I think that even in the interior some of his conclusions probably applied. He talked about the aging capital stock that was employed in the business. He talked about an aging workforce. He talked about low and inadequate re- turns on equity. These are all indicators of an industry, an industrial sector, in trouble. Indeed, Dr.

Pearse said that the coastal industry had been in a long-term de- cline for a quarter of a century. [1520] W h a t w e h a v e i s m o r e t h a n a p r o b l e m w i t h U . S . protectionism. On the coast the industry is high-cost.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6533 We have the highest costs of products, labour and fibre of any of our competitors, especially in the pulp sector. The market has changed, as we all know, in recent years. There's not enough investment. I would argue with those who say: "Let's leave this industry alone and just carry on the way we are." I say — from what I have understood and what I have learned and the people I've listened to — that is simply not an option. We need to deal with these industry issues with some honesty. I think people who work in the industry deserve no less.

I don't want us to be like the last government, who put together the jobs and timber accord, which I think gave false hope to thousands of our fellow citizens. I don't think that's the right way to do things, and I think, quite frankly, the former government probably wouldn't do that again either. The truth is that industry has shed 17,000 jobs in 26 manufacturing plants since 1997. That's less than six years ago. When you look at all these factors and the analyses, the expert opinion that has been sought as we move to these reforms, it's important to understand that the status quo simply cannot continue.

We cannot expect, as a society, to have our forest industry and this valuable asset that we own collectively turned into wealth and jobs in British Columbia on the basis of the policy and the law as it exists before we introduce these reforms. The reforms that are coming in Bill 29, as other speakers have mentioned, in part, do a couple of things. They remove the requirement for appurte- nancy, and they amend the cut controls that have been part of the landscape for so long.

Critics talk about tearing up a social contract, but to me a social contract that isn't working, that is creating job losses and reduc- ing investment and causing an aging workforce — all the other things Peter Pearse talked about — is not acceptable. I t s e e m s t o m e t h a t t h e b e s t s o c i a l c o n t r a c t w e c a n ask for and the best job protection we can find is through a profitable industry — an industry that makes profits that we'll plow back into our communities. That's how we are going to get this social contract.

That's how peo- ple are going to stay in the towns in which they live and live the lifestyles they value, not by the kind of social engineering our predecessors introduced for what I am sure were perfectly valid reasons at the time. We must now move forward. We must let the in- dustry adapt to and benefit from the new situations that it faces. There are new market realities driving our industry that we must let drive our industry. What are they? Talk to anybody in the forest industry about what's happened in just the last half-dozen years in terms of product substitutions.

Go to one of the major stores like RONA or Home Depot and see what is available in terms of product substitution. Look at where the products come from. I said a moment ago that we are a very high-cost producer of fibre, and it's true. That's why countries like Latvia and other countries in eastern Europe are gaining such market share in the U.S.A. — in addition to the reason, of course, of the high tariff that's been imposed on Canada.

It seems to me that in these kind of new circumstances and new market realities, for us to continue to force tenure holders to cut timber when markets don't support it is a policy that has at least, to say it kindly, outlasted its usefulness. The bill also provides some flexibility for the sub- division of tenures and private business transactions where it makes sense. I think the fact that we are re- moving government from judging business deals is indeed a major step forward.

It is through those kinds of moves that this bill will encourage investment in community forests and will encourage new tenure holders to come forward. Taken with the other reforms in other bills and other activities this government has made to make B.C. more business friendly, this bill promises to the fresh minds and the new people who will enter this industry to encourage their fresh ideas, and it will bring new investment. [1525] At the same time we must recognize that this amount of change — and it is broad, deep and funda- mental — creates a whole bunch of uncertainty in vari- ous quarters.

How the reforms are implemented is critical, as is the timing. I want to urge the minister to move quickly to clarify the details that will fall from these pieces of legislation so that long-term investors in our province and new investors can build their new business plans around the new tenure taxation and marketing initiatives we are introducing. I want to note, lastly, that the depth and breadth of consultations this minister undertook with the assis- tance of fellow MLAs and professional people — ana- lysts, consultants — is unparalleled, as far as I'm aware, in the history of this province.

The fact that that kind of consultation took place gives me considerable comfort that we have canvassed this issue extremely broadly. And, yes, not everybody will agree. We can't expect that. But nobody can say they didn't get a chance to give their opinion on these very important reforms, and nobody can say this government didn't suggest that these kinds of reforms were on the way. I am pleased to support this bill.

I think it is one piece in a puzzle of significant legislative and policy changes, including taxation changes, that will lead to a revitalized forest industry in our province — an indus- try that will continue to support those public services, like health and education, which this industry has sup- ported in the past and will continue to support into the future. J. MacPhail: Bill 29, the Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Here we are at second reading. It's the time when we discuss the general principles of the legislation.

As the minister has noted for us on sev- eral occasions, this troika of bills — we've moved from trilogy to troika of bills: Bills 27, 28 and 29 — will dra- matically change the way forest companies operate in this province. It will also dramatically change the way government manages and defends the public interest as these companies take public resources from public land in order to make a private profit.

6534 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 It is testament to the breadth and depth of these changes that outside of the Liberal caucus there is any- thing but agreement on whether these changes are a good idea or not, anything but agreement on whether they will produce the results the minister claims or whether they will indeed move the industry from its current malaise to a healthier future. If in Bill 27 we had the nuts and bolts of this new vehicle and in Bill 28 the marketing plan, here in Bill 29 w e h a v e t h e c h a s s i s .

T h i s i s t h e p l a t f o r m f r o m w h i c h the cart will run. It is here that the government turns our public forests into a real estate commodity, a com- modity controlled by the forest companies, a commod- ity that used to be controlled by the people of this province through this Legislature. The government is asking British Columbians to believe that developers in the forests will respect the public interest and do what is in the best interests of all of us.

Without actually transferring ownership, the government is going to allow companies to trade and sell the tenures they have to put in our public lands. The government is commodifying our public resource not for public benefit but for private profit. It is taking what has been and will continue to be a licence of ac- cess and turning it into a deed of ownership. Rather than tenure forming the basis for investment in a community, tenure itself will become a commodity that need not even be used at all, let alone employed to the benefit of resource-dependent communities. Mr.

Speaker, I pause, if I may, just for a moment to permit…. Hon. G. Cheema: Can I have leave to make an in- troduction? Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to introduce a group of grade 5 students from Beaver Creek Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers and their parents. [1530] I had a good exchange of ideas with them this af- ternoon. They asked me a number of questions, and one of them was: what's my favourite team? So I told them we are all hoping the Canucks will win.

They had a number of other questions, and I told them that they have to work hard, because one of them wants to run for politics. I just wanted to welcome them, and I would like the House to make them very welcome in this building. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: To carry on with Bill 29 debate, I would argue that this bill makes tenures more like pri- vate property. It allows and, I would argue, encourages tenure holders to consolidate their holdings. It allows — again, I would argue that it encourages — tenure holders to subdivide and sell off a publicly owned as- set: our forests.

All of this without meaningful provin- cial oversight or approval. Existing tenure holders will be given the opportu- nity for even greater consolidation now. They will be able to sidestep conflicts with communities, first na- tions or environmentalists simply by selling off "prob- lem" portions of their tenures. It's never been permitted before, with good reason.

As well, the removal of government approval to tenure transfers, combined with the consolidation and subdivision provisions, will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the province to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities to first nations, leaving this new legisla- tion open to constitutional challenge. The last thing we need in this province is more court challenges that will forever disallow certainty of land use. Certainty of land use is the only reason that people will come and invest in this province.

It's either that — constitutional chal- lenge in the court — or throw the whole process into constant and replicating rounds of consultation. Con- sultation is the constitutional right of first nations be- fore anyone can derive any gain whatsoever from the forests. In this case, the government has not done that. The result will not be better forest management or increased employment or higher government revenues.

There will, however, be a two-fold result: on one hand, increased profits for the corporate giants; on the other hand, a further distancing of the management of our public resource from those who own the resource — us, the people of B.C. We as legislators need to ask ourselves if that is what we are here for. Is that what we got elected to do — to increase the profits of private companies operating on public lands? I didn't; my colleague from Vancouver– Mount Pleasant didn't. I stand up and challenge the Liberal caucus to say that that is not what they are here for as well.

Or are we here to protect our public re- source from those who see it not as a public legacy but as a source of private profit? What of the communities that depend on this re- source? What have they been saying? Well, how's this for a ringing endorsement of the government plans? "You should phone me back in about six months. It's problematic up here, because there's a fear among some people that the raw logs will simply be shipped somewhere else." That's from the mayor of Terrace. Then there's the industry itself.

The Council of For- est Industries "cautioned that the impacts have to be managed carefully." Secondary manufacturers are also "cautious." Another group is also cautious, saying there will be "huge impacts" — the logging contractors. Brian Zak of the Coast Forest and Lumber Association ex- pressed uncertainty and concern for how this plan is to mesh with the global markets that they must compete in.

Dan Garland, of the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, has expressed fears that the changes in this bill will only favour the big companies, and that will occur by forcing small specialty produc- ers to compete on the same footing as the multination- als.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6535 [1535] Again, we're talking about a publicly owned re- source here. Doman Industries, the mainstay of logging and processing on the Island, says these changes will increase costs, reduce employment and result in mill closures. In fact, according to Doman, what the gov- ernment is doing is "rewarding the forest companies that have high-graded their tenure by breaking the Forest Act and taking all the good wood out and leav- ing the poor wood behind.

They are punishing compa- nies who are trying to provide stable and sustainable employment in coastal B.C. by practising proper forest practices in order to protect current and future genera- tions of forestry workers." R i c k D o m a n g o e s o n t o a s k t h i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t question, a key question. He asks: "Why are we agree- ing with the U.S. lumber coalition when the World Trade Organization says we aren't subsidizing our in- dustry?" It's a pretty good question.

Within months of this government coming into office, they, the government, proposed this gutting of our forest practices just to satisfy the powerful Ameri- can lumber lobby. Since those early days, nothing much has changed. Just the same way that there's not been any impact on our economy from those massive tax cuts, nothing has changed from those early days when the government proposed this as a way to solve the softwood lumber dispute. We still have the dispute; our industry is still hurting.

The government is rolling over on cut control, roll- ing over on tying the cut to communities and is effec- tively privatizing tenure. They're not getting anything in return — nothing. The industry continues to suffer losses. Jobs continue to disappear. The lumber lobby from the United States continues to demand more. The government, I admit, has not been in this process alone. However, it has simply chosen to listen only to its own voice.

First nations, environmentalists, the IWA, the PPWC, the CEP, local communities and concerned citizens have come together in common cause to ask — in fact, to plead with this government — the government to bring them into the discussions and to listen to their concerns and their ideas on how best we protect our most abundant and important land-based resource — protect it not for the relatively few that work directly in the industry, but protect it for our collective benefit. That's what we got elected to do. I hope that's what everybody in this chamber got elected to do.

Protect it for the schools it builds, the hospital it funds and the communities it supports. The government has chosen not to listen to those mayors and community leaders seeking stability, cho- sen not to listen to those workers seeking a future for themselves and their families. First nations, who have constitutional and historical rights to the land, are not listened to, nor are everyday British Columbians who value the incredible beauty and ecological diversity of our province for the gift that it is.

No, this government has chosen to listen to the de- mands of American protectionism and the greed of corporate boardrooms. That shouldn't come as any surprise. Certainly, it won't come as any surprise to people in this chamber. Increasingly, it won't come as any surprise to the public, because, of course, those corporate boardrooms provided over $3 million in do- nations to the B.C. Liberal Party. No wonder the Pre- mier doesn't want to have campaign finance reform. Where could he get $3 million as easily as from those corporate boardrooms? Let us not get too carried away with blame.

Some- times governments make mistakes regardless of who is paying the tab. Most tragically for those who depend on governments, arrogant governments refuse to ac- knowledge their mistakes, refuse to take corrective action, refuse to look beyond their narrow partisanship and insist that their way is the only way; their vision, the only vision; and their answers, the only answers. That is what we are seeing with this bill.

It is the prod- uct not of extensive public consultation and information- sharing but of kowtowing to the demands of big busi- ness for easier and greater access to our public forests wrapped in a lovely little public relations campaign. [1540] The bill not only says tenure can be subdivided, sold and traded. It also says the annual cut control re- quirement will be amended to allow companies to es- cape penalty for over- or undercutting their annual allowable cut, and it will allow them to restart their five-year annual allowable cut at any point. Isn't that comforting?

The impact of this change alone will be dramatic. What it does is reinforce the liquidation- conversion mentality, the cut-and-run mentality, the bull-of-the-woods mentality that has so characterized the history of this industry in British Columbia. As a result, this bill is a backward step, a step that only an arrogant, bull-headed government would take. The minister and his colleagues make the claim that this is the biggest change in the forest management of our province in over 50 years. Unfortunately, he is right.

What the government is doing is surrendering to a debate that has been going on in various forms and in various forums for generations. It is perhaps ironic that I should stand here and suggest that we remember B.C.'s first chief forester, H.R. MacMill an, but I do so t o note, as others such as Jeremy Wilson have, that H.R.

MacMillan was instru- mental in establishing a "weak advance guard of scien- tific managers in the province's new Forest Service, where they faced and did rather poorly against a forest industry determined to limit the scope of government efforts to conserve the resource, extract rent and con- trol speculative industry." The Forest Service set the battleground and grew to defend what is our natural legacy as British Columbi- ans and as Canadians, not always as vigorously as many wanted but at least in a way that let us all debate how our forests should be managed.

People who work in the Forest Service take such unbelievable pride in their role in allowing that debate to flourish. Here to- day we have the surrender. The battle H.R. MacMillan started is over now, and he lost, and the people of Brit- ish Columbia will continue to lose.

6536 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 Despite the fact that no company has ever been penalized for undercutting its annual allowable cut due to market pressures, this government likes to per- petuate the myth that trees were being cut down just to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement. I hear it all the time from these Liberal MLAs. "Do you know what companies had to do because of the stupid, silly law that was in place?" Well, in fact, companies didn't have to do what this government claims as being silly. They were never, ever penalized for any such non-committal under the act.

Now, as a result of this myth the gov- ernment likes to perpetuate, this government gives the companies the right to cut the equivalent of 15 years' worth of annual allowable cut in ten years. It gives the company the ability to move into an area, cut as much as it can in that area as fast as it can and then sit idle. [1545] What are the consequences of this action? For every action there is a reaction.

What this government likes to perpetuate, saying: "Oh, the rules were outdated and harmful to the growth of the industry, harmful to the flourishing of this industry in our province…." By now outlawing that requirement of a company to cut every year, here's what the reaction is to that action. Well, if a licensee is allowed to remain inactive for two or three years, workers in that industry will lose all seniority and recall rights. That will cause a break in service in their pension plan. They will lose extended medical and dental coverage. That's what it means for the working people in the industry.

Most, before this hap- pens, will have pressures mount in their families, on their families, and most will simply move on. As a re- sult of those forest workers moving on, communities will suffer. The first act of this government, the very first act — some may not recall it, and lots won't want to recall it — was to create a $4.5 billion deficit. Now every action they take is an action to help them crawl out from un- der the creation of that $4.5 billion deficit. Stumpage revenue, the amount of taxes collected from the forest industry, plays a major

part in government revenues. By allowing the companies to determine their own cut control, the government is adding even more uncer- tainty to its ability to forecast revenues, because it won't have any reliable base from which to project stumpage revenues. What happens to the budget of the province in the year the companies decide to sit idle? What happens to all those great hospitals and schools that these Liberal MLAs like to stand up about and say: "It's the forest revenues that pay for those hospitals and schools"? You're darn right; it is the forest revenues that pay for them.

What happens in the years the companies sit idle and perform no business in this province? For the Liber- als, this is called flexibility. For those who live in forest- dependent communities, what it really means is a re- turn to the boom-and-bust cycles that undermine community stability and community coherence. The government members will call this fair, they will herald the triumph of the marketplace, but those in the communities on the coast and in the interior will wonder why they get to work only three years out of five while the company continues to make profits five years out of five.

When only the market decides, the wealthiest and most powerful quickly gain advantage. That isn't an ideological statement; that's a statement about the marketplace. Only the wealthiest and the m o s t p o we rf u l g ai n ad v a nt ag e . W o rk e rs , o n t he o t he r hand, face job loss and insecurity as companies bid one another out of business, leaving only a few huge corpo- rations in control. Members will have seen the first quarter report from Canfor last week, where it reports a $1.3 million loss for the first three months of this year.

It also reports how its cost reduction–margin improvement program — that's David Emerson's, a man for whom I have great respect, euphemism for closing two sawmills last year — yielded a saving of $13 million. Good for David Emerson — I say that — but not so good for the workers. Of course, those listening will have heard about the investment Canfor is making in its Houston operation, an investment that will make it the largest sawmill in the world. Again, good for David Emerson and good for the town of Houston, but what does this foretell for the industry — supermills and consolidation?

What will it mean to the workers, communities and government revenues if, as it is widely anticipated, Canfor and Slocan should merge? That's not just gos- sip. That fuels the business pages every week in this province. People are predicting that Jimmy Pattison and David Emerson — Jimmy P. and David E. — will rule the woods. What does that mean for the workers and the communities and government revenues? [1550] The minister likes to talk about opportunity. He sees his reform of forest policy as creating opportuni- ties for those who have not had access to wood.

But how much access is the value-added sector going to get when the giants of the industry continue to grow and need fibre and need wood? These changes the govern- ment claims will bring new investors to the industry will do nothing of the sort. All they will do is force the small mill, the value-added mill sector, and the first nations to compete head-on with the giants. This is not about building capacity, as the Minister of Forests claims. It's about building the bottom line of a very few but very large companies. B.C. wood processors will face closure as raw logs are shipped across the border.

If the minister doesn't believe me, then perhaps he should take a walk some evening along the Ogden Point causeway and look out o n t o t h e S t r a i t o f J u a n d e F u c a , a n d h e w i l l s e e t h e barge loaded with logs from the Carmanah heading south. That's happening as we speak. That may be good for the fallers, for the men in the woods who cut down the trees. It may even be good for the longshore workers in Ladysmith. But again, it's not good for British Columbians. Communities will face instability and insecurity as mills close and com- panies consolidate.

And most troubling of all, first na- tions will again be shut out of the benefits. We will lose revenues that support publicly funded health care and

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6537 education as well as many other quality programs for British Columbians. Perhaps the Ministry of Children and Family Development will have to make even greater cuts than it's already making. With the exception of those constitutionally en- shrined democratic rights that we enjoy, there are very few, if any, areas of government that we should not all be trying to improve. We are not opposed to reform in the way we manage our forests — far from it.

Most of the people who are critical of this government's back- room plan are aware that the forest industry needs to constantly improve in order to be competitive, and the countries with whom we compete grow every day. We're aware of that. We also believe that government has a role in making sure that opportunity is not lost.

Indeed, several efforts have been made, separate and apart from the government's backroom dealings, to have public discussions about how the Crown's for- est assets can be better managed to sustain communi- ties across the province, to provide into the future the economic activity that supports the hospitals and schools that we all care about in those communities, and that gives security to families and small busi- nesses.

These people should be commended for their effort, committing their own resources and time, doing a job that many would argue this government should h a v e d o n e r i g h t f r o m t h e s t a r t . T h e y s h o u l d b e c o m - mended for working through some of the very difficult problems in a very public way. The coalition of forest solutions, composed of envi- ronmental groups; municipal leaders; first nations repre- sentatives; labour organizations, including the B.C.

Gov- ernment and Service Employees Union, which repre- sents workers who monitor the use of this public re- source; carpenters; pulp and paperworkers…. They all grappled with the very difficult issue of the softwood lumber dispute and the future of the forest industry.

T h e y t h e n c a m e t o s o m e p r e t t y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d p r i n c i - ples upon which to base any change, including these principles: enhancing public control and oversight of our forest resources; reconciling aboriginal and Crown title; ensuring the public gets full value for forest resources through transparent regional log markets, with linked pricing reforms and stronger export restrictions; secur- ing timber supply for current local processing needs and the development of a strong value-added industry; cre- ating, implementing and enforcing forest practice stan- dards that promote the long-term health of B.C.'s forest ecosystems; keeping forest sector jobs in B.C. communi- ties with the revised social contract, thereby protecting existing workers and creating greater opportunities for local communities and employment. [1555] That's a pretty straightforward, comprehensive, thoughtful and commonsense set of principles upon which to base change, I would say.

These principles only came about as the result of a lot of hard work, but in the end they resonate as true. I w o n d e r w h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s r e s p o n s e i s t o these principles. I'd like to hear the opinion of the Min- ister of Forests on which of these principles he would discard. I would also like to hear the minister tell us how his backroom plan meets any of these tests. The government tries to belittle the outcry from communities about this backroom forest policy, but they should pay heed to just how many people — how many municipalities, for example — are expressing concern.

Recently the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities met, and top of their list was concern about where the government is going with this plan. They endorsed a resolution that (1) endorsed for- est policy reform that puts communities and forests first and (2) called upon the government to conduct community hearings to discuss the merits and implica- tions of alternative forest policy change for communi- ties, workers and the environment before proceeding with the remaining forest policy change legislation.

Now, just to give everybody a sense of who that association represents and to perhaps not let the gov- ernment belittle them as special interest groups, here are the communities that voted in favour of that mo- tion: Courtenay, Duncan, Nanaimo, Saanich, Sechelt, Zeballos, Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, the In- dian government district, Parksville, Port Alberni, Vic- toria, Campbell River, Central Saanich, Esquimalt, Langford, Metchosin, North Cowichan, North Saanich, Oak Bay, Port Hardy, Powell River, Sooke, Tofino, Ucluelet, Comox, Sidney, View Royal, Alert Bay, Cum- berland, Gold River, Port Alice, Sayward, Tahsis, the Central Coast regional district, the capital regional dis- trict, Comox-Strathcona regional district, Cowichan Valley regional district, Mount Waddington regional district, Nanaimo regional district, Powell River re- gional district, Sunshine Coast regional district, Islands Trust regional district, Gibsons, Ladysmith, Lake Cowichan, Port McNeill and Qualicum Beach. [H.

Long in the chair.] Now, I confess I don't represent any of those com- munities, and I think my colleague from Vancouver– Mount Pleasant doesn't represent any of those com- munities, so I would assume that the MLAs who do represent them will get up and make the case for these communities on the record — will put on the record the request from all of these dozens of communities that they want this legislation not to proceed.

Governments should help communities to maintain existing processing facilities, as any attempt to close a mill or plant or shut down a harvesting operation should be subject to a legislated mill closure review involving workers, government and first nations in the affected communities. That should be a minimum. Local workers and employers must be given the opportunity to maintain the enterprises that provide their livelihoods. It is simply unacceptable for the gov- ernment to say: "We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of things." Workers who lose their jobs must be assisted to find new ones.

They must be able to obtain training and retraining opportunities or retire with dignity, without financial penalties to their union pension plans or to themselves.

6538 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 [1600] No one — I say no one — doubts that the wood industry and the economy are changing and that the industry must be able to accommodate that change. However, giving the companies free rein to cut when and where they want and to mill what and where they want undermines the nature of the social contract that exists between those private companies who are access- ing our public resource.

As such, following the failure of a mill closure review to find a workable solution, companies must be required to outline proposals for new or expanded facilities in British Columbia with the priority on the affected region. It is not acceptable for the government to say: "Oh, we don't care about that anymore. Let the industry reorganize. We don't care what the consequences are." I put those questions to the minister this morning, and he said: "Sorry.

We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of things." In order to continue to access Crown timber, com- panies would have to increase their investment in our province's future. Under no circumstances should Crown timber be granted without such a commitment. Logs must continue to be processed in British Colum- bia, and companies must produce, to the satisfaction of cabinet, a detailed plan.

That plan should show how they would expand their investment in our future by creating additional jobs, undertaking or sponsoring more research and development, increasing the value- added component of their products, doing more to improve yields and the quality of the timber they pro- duce, training the changing workforce and continuing to maintain a healthy and safe environment for work- ers and communities as well as protecting our forests. Forest objectives and outcomes should be legis- lated. There is no sin in that. It is a fair trade.

Even in the private marketplace, it's a fair trade to have forest objectives and outcomes legislated to provide clear and enforceable standards with strong penalties to viola- tors. These are not private lands. These are publicly owned lands. Yet massive cutbacks in provincial minis- tries responsible for the forests undermine the ability of government to carry out effective enforcement. We are being told to trust the developers. We are being told not to worry because professionals, paid for by the forest industry, will make sure everything is done in the public interest.

Perhaps members would do well to read the most recent issue of Forum. That's the publication put out by the Association of B.C. Profes- sional Foresters. Judy Thomas writes, in an article, about this experience she has had and how the changes introduced by this government will impact on the job that foresters and other professionals will be called on to do. She writes this in her own professional maga- zine. Here's what she said: "I recently sealed the forest development plan for a woodlot client, but was uncomfortable with one section.

The undeclared land and resource management plan" — the LRMP for those of us in the business — "covering my woodlot client's area specified code plus harvesting restrictions upstream of water licences. Under pressure from the licensee, I excluded these restrictive clauses in their plan, rationalizing to myself that the land and resource management plan is undeclared and that the ministry would catch it, if it was an issue. "This is an example of foresters using the ministry as a shield for their decisions.

My client feels my more restrictive opinion is incorrect, as evidenced by someone else's approved forest development plan, which also did not follow these LRMP recommendations. As the LRMP is undeclared, the client may be correct. It is a grey area. The end result is I'm leaving out more restrictive clauses regarding protection for a water licensee. "Because the Ministry of Forests still ultimately approves the plan, my professional reliance is backed up by the ministry. I'm glad this plan is going through before the code changes.

In grey decisions, genuine professional reliance is difficult because the forester is too close to the client financially. Resisting pressure is tough. Under the new results-based code, I will say no to that pressure." [1605] That's from a professional forester. But here we are. We're being told that the public interests and the

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0506pm-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0506pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d3f3235c978c7800288b601b8069da4ccab85a2d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).