2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Regulatory Reporting Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Safety of Trans-Canada Highway

N. Macdonald

Vancouver International Airport and air travel between B.C. and Asia

R. Howard

Umbrella Society for Addictions and Mental Health

C. James

Connaught Skating Club in Richmond

J. Yap

Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences

S. Fraser

Intellectual property

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Government handling of uranium-mining application by Boss Power Corp.

N. Macdonald

Hon. R. Coleman

H. Lali

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

L. Krog

Hon. R. Coleman

B. Ralston

Community living services review

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

N. Simons

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 (continued)

R. Cantelon

B. Routley

E. Foster

B. Simpson

J. Slater

G. Gentner

C. Trevena

H. Bains

L. Krog

[ Page 8355 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Les: I have the pleasure this afternoon to introduce four guests who are seated on the floor of the Legislature — to your right, Mr. Speaker. They are: from Arizona, Senator Al Melvin; from Nevada, Assemblyman David Bobzien; from New Mexico, Senator Timothy Jennings; and from California, Senator Curren Price.

I had the pleasure of meeting with these gentlemen this morning, and they have met with other members of cabinet as well, discussing with us different areas of common interest. I'm told that they have very much enjoyed their visits here for the last day or so, and I would ask the House to make them feel welcome in our precincts.

J. Horgan: I want to join with the government member in welcoming our guests from the United States.

In the next number of minutes you're going to see citizens introduced in this assembly. You're going to see polite statements by members and then a raucous thing called question period. I hope you have a good time.

[1335]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to announce several guests, some of whom are from Surrey, that are joining us in the House today. I would like to welcome an outstanding businessman and community leader, Hardev Grewal, who is here today with his son Isher, along with Harjinder Singh Hayer, who is visiting from India, and Sanjiv Alawalia, who are all here today. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

L. Popham: I'd like to welcome my mother, Lorna, back to the House today. She's from Brentwood, British Columbia. And I would like to welcome two very, very longtime dear friends, Russ Fuoco and Star Weiss. They're from Metchosin. I've known them…. I grew up with them being part of my family and their family being part of our family from Quadra Island.

Hon. D. McRae: I have two guests today, and they both advocate and represent for agriculture in British Columbia. I have David Taylor, who is the chair of the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission, and Robert Butler, who is the general manager of the B.C. Potato Growers Association. Would this House please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: I'd like to introduce two guests today, Holly Reid and Will Beale, who are here in Victoria as part of their work with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. Will the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: Last Thursday I had the absolute privilege to attend a vigil in Emery Barnes Park. A gentleman who made a remarkable set of comments that evening was Ryan Clayton. He has joined us today in the gallery, and he is joined by his lovely colleague, who is Daniel Belkin. I'd ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

N. Letnick: Mr. Speaker, we frequently rise in this House to announce grandchildren. I wish I had one to announce today, but I'm very proud otherwise to announce that I have guests from the best business school in the country. And the best business school in the country, for those of you who don't already know, is not even in my riding. It's in the riding of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations, and that's the Okanagan School of Business.

With us today we have Blair Baldwin and Laura Thurnheer, who are the faculty, and they've brought with them an outstanding team of students who just had an intense competition in tourism. They are Jena Huber, Jordan Lacroix, Nathan Milligan and Shelby Fransen. If you wouldn't mind helping me make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to wish someone a very happy birthday today, a very dear friend of mine from Burnaby–Deer Lake. So I hope you all join me in wishing her a very, very happy birthday and many, many more.

J. Rustad: It's not often I get an opportunity to introduce somebody travelling down from Nechako Lakes, but Maureen Czirfusz is down, joining us here today. She is with the Houston and District Chamber of Commerce. She's also a manager and economic development officer. She's, more or less, a go-to person in Houston, so would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll join in congratulating the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on her birthday today. It's not every day or every year you get to celebrate your 35th birthday, although some of us try.

I am also pleased to introduce to the House today two of my newest correspondence branch staff, Jas Bains and Stephanie Klak. Both ladies are graduates of St. Michael's University School here in Victoria, and they've gone on to receive post-secondary degrees. They are hard-working, they are enthusiastic, and I am delighted to have them on my team.

[ Page 8356 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: And from the Minister of Health's office, new arrival Julie D'Argis, who is all of those things and brave to come into my office. It is her first opportunity to watch deliberations of the House, and I know that all of my colleagues will want to make her welcome.

D. Routley: Joining us in the House today is the conflict commissioner Paul Fraser and his lovely daughter Jackie, who have come to see the question period.

[1340]

I can share the story that I shared with her. Mr. MacMinn, the former Clerk of the House for over 50 years — I could share this with the gentlemen from the United States as well — cautions young people when they come here that at home we teach you to work cooperatively in a friendly way with each other. This isn't that kind of place. He says it's that way for a reason. There's anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn't blood on our streets. I think it was a good reminder.

J. van Dongen: Visiting the Legislature today are a wonderful couple named Barbara and Martin Epp from Abbotsford South. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

N. Macdonald: Joining us in the House is my constituency assistant, Joy Orr. All New Democrat constituency assistants are coming, but they're coming tomorrow, so we've jumped the line here a bit. But please join me in making her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Regulatory

Reporting Act

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Regulatory Reporting Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 7, Regulatory Reporting Act, 2011. Bill 7 introduces a commitment by government to ensure that progress on our regulatory reform initiatives is made public each and every year. This legislation responds to calls from the small business community in particular to institutionalize accountability and transparency of regulatory reform. It also demonstrates government's ongoing commitment to reduce the red-tape burden imposed on citizens and small business.

Bill 7 will impose on government a requirement to produce an annual public report on its regulatory reform activities each and every fiscal year. It will require the report to be made public no later than June 30 of each and every fiscal year, and it will require that the report include specific content that will be specified by regulation.

The legislation solidifies British Columbia as the Canadian leader in regulatory reform by being the first Canadian jurisdiction to enshrine in law a commitment to publish annual reports on regulatory reform. It builds on our leadership in reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape by 42 percent since 2001.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Regulatory Reporting Act, 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 25B)

SAFETY OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

N. Macdonald: Those of us who live along the Trans-Canada Highway in the eastern part of British Columbia are intimately aware of the problems that exist with our national highway. We hear the ambulance heading out to attend yet another accident scene, we experience the closure of the highway for days at a time because of avalanche or accident, and we see the volume of traffic clogging the highway, both tourist and commercial.

Few would argue; this is an unsafe highway. In a single month one summer there were 17 fatalities and many more injured between Salmon Arm and Field. On some stretches this highway is unfit for truck traffic. Truck News Canada estimates that over 2,200 semis per day travel the Trans-Canada Highway, and the volume of truck traffic is growing by 2 percent a year. So many trucks on an inadequate road results in overturned trucks, injuries, deaths and highway closures.

Over the past 12 years there have been positive steps towards improvements. Projects such as the Kicking Horse Canyon, Clanwilliam and Donald Bridge are all important, but there's still much work to be done. British Columbia needs to make a clear financial commitment with an established time frame to complete the four-lane divided highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border. The signs went up proclaiming an impending completion before the last election, but there is still no comprehensive plan to complete the work.

[1345]

The Trans-Canada is a critical piece of infrastructure, and work on these projects gives much-needed economic

[ Page 8357 ]

activity to rural British Columbia. So people in Columbia River–Revelstoke are waiting for a commitment from government. Canada may start here, if that's the slogan one wants to use, but much of the transportation route linking us to the rest of the country is still stuck in the 1950s.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND

AIR TRAVEL BETWEEN B.C. AND ASIA

R. Howard: Every once in a while we must stop and celebrate a success. It is well known that expanding into Asian markets is a major focus of this government. Asian countries such as China and India are enjoying phenomenal economic growth, and our status as Canada's Pacific Gateway means we are uniquely well positioned to capitalize on this growth.

An important means for us to do this is through expanded air access, which allows us to move people and goods to Asian markets, and I'm very proud that one of the most important parts of our air access infrastructure is in my riding of Richmond Centre. I'm speaking, of course, of the Vancouver International Airport, otherwise known as YVR.

I would like today to highlight one important development at YVR since this House last sat. China Southern Airlines — Asia's largest, and the world's third-largest, airline — has started operating between YVR and mainland China. Since July, China Southern Airlines has been transporting B.C. goods, including heavy equipment, from all across the country. This new cargo service provides a crucial means for transporting high-value and time-sensitive goods to China.

A good example of this is B.C. seafood. The province exported $957 million worth of seafood in 2010, and this new service is going to help us increase that. B.C. seafood is much in demand in China, and it is now easier and faster to get it here and to get it there than ever before. This is just one more indication that YVR has arrived as a key international gateway for cargo on the west coast of North America, and I look forward to reporting on even more successes at YVR in the future.

UMBRELLA SOCIETY FOR

ADDICTIONS AND MENTAL HEALTH

C. James: "I have a very long road ahead of me. I'm certainly not out of the rain, so please don't take my umbrella away." Those are the words from Steve, a man who is a client of the Umbrella Society for Addictions and Mental Health, an exceptional organization doing vitally important work in my community.

This year across Canada 10,000 people will die as a direct result of substance use. Many more will have their quality of life and their family's life severely compromised. Studies say that 11 percent of Canadians will have a problematic relationship with substances in their lifetime, and the rate is slightly higher here in B.C. The numbers are staggering. Those struggling with addictions are 20 percent of those in family physicians' waiting rooms, 30 percent in acute care hospital settings, 40 percent or more in emergency rooms, 65 percent or more in child protection cases and 80 percent in the corrections systems.

The Umbrella Society provides understanding, acceptance and support for people affected by substance use and mental health issues. The enormously dedicated volunteers and staff members provide peer support and strive to accept each individual's reality without judgment. They empower them, leading with trust, hope, respect and honour. Their approach is to walk with their clients, to laugh with them and, yes, sometimes to cry with them.

The Umbrella Society provides shelter from the storm through the generosity of citizens in my community, but money is tight and the demand for help continues to increase. Staff struggle to keep up. It's not an easy road for this place of incredible new beginnings and hope for a better future.

C.R., a 32-year-old client, is proud to say he has been 20 months clean and serene. He's been employed for more than a year, and as he says, he's contributing to society, not taking away from it. One other client said: "Umbrella shielded me from the darkness so that I could see a doorway into a new life."

That's the inspiring work, and I ask members to join me in saying thank you to Umbrella and to continue to advocate for support for addictions treatment.

CONNAUGHT SKATING CLUB

IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of presenting an $85,000 community gaming grant cheque to the Connaught Skating Club in Richmond. Directors Aundrea Feltham and Takami Schreiber, as well as Keegan Murphy, director of skating programs, were on hand for the event, and they took the time to update me on the history and the future of the club.

[1350]

This year Connaught Skating Club held its 100th anniversary. It was founded in 1911 by Mrs. H.G. Ross under the patronage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. Connaught is the oldest skating club in our province and the second-oldest skating club in all of Canada. It's a non-profit organization and is a member of Skate Canada, the successful national organization for the sport.

This dynamic club is run and managed by a dedicated group of volunteers. It offers a variety of programs from ones designed for young skaters who are learning to skate to those for the recreational skater and programs for the competitive skater. Rising skaters to watch for in

[ Page 8358 ]

the future include 12-year-old Angus Chan and 13-year-old Emma Carr. They are just two of the Connaught skaters that personify passion and dedication to competitive skating. From skating equipment and skating costumes to fostering this excellent form of recreation to nurturing future skating stars, this club offers it all, right in my community.

Fellow members of the House and Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Connaught Skating Club on its 100th anniversary. Best wishes to the members, parents, skaters, coaches and volunteers for the next 100 years.

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY

FOR WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES

S. Fraser: On September 6 the members for Cowichan Valley and Burnaby-Edmonds joined me, and we were honoured to attend the grand opening of the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences in Port Alberni. The university is setting the standard for a new approach for workplace health. It is about providing workers — disabled, on or off the job — with the means and rights to continue to play a strong and productive role in that workplace rather than being marginalized in society. Sixteen nations worldwide have already adopted this curriculum.

The attendees included the chief executive of the German Workers Compensation Board — that's the largest WCB in the world — as well as the chair of the UN Technical Commission on Workers Compensation, as well as the chair of the UN Disability Research Commission. The who's who of the disability management world were joined by the CEO of Teck Resources and the president of the United Steelworkers of Canada.

As I've said, 16 nations around the world have adopted this curriculum. The grand opening of the Pacific Coast University in Port Alberni brought together the countries around the world that operate workers compensation boards. It's quite a coup for Port Alberni, hon. Speaker. The university will also bring much-needed economic development for the region.

I would like to thank all members of this House, of this chamber, for supporting the accreditation of the Pacific Coast University back in legislation we did in 2007. It was truly a non-partisan event. I would like to thank the minister, the previous minister, for attending as well, and agreeing to provide financial support through WorkSafe B.C.

Malaysia has formally adopted these standards already, making it the 16th nation to do so. In Canada the Ontario Workers Compensation Board has formally adopted these standards. Perhaps it is time to get WorkSafe B.C. to do the same and join the rest of the country and the rest of the world in becoming true leaders in disability management.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

M. Stilwell: Recently my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano talked about the importance of personal and private property. Property can come in many different shapes, sizes and forms. An important and complex type is intellectual property. The term refers to a broad range of rights, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and industrial designs. It is property based on the legal right that others can be excluded from using and their ownership can be transferred. It is intellectual because they protect intangible assets, most often arising from some form of human creativity.

Intellectual property rights spur innovation and job creation, allowing the owners to benefit from the property they have created. It provides a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in developing new products to make our lives better. It is estimated by economists that two-thirds of the value of large businesses can be traced to these intangible assets.

Recognising this, since 2001 our government has invested over $1.8 billion in research and innovation to give our province an advantage in the knowledge-based economy. Research at UBC, Simon Fraser and University of Victoria has resulted in 274 spinoffs, including WebCT at UBC, which provides software used globally by educational organizations; Air Games Wireless at SFU, the world's leading mobile social entertainment provider; and Protox at the University of Victoria, for developing drugs for the treatment of prostate diseases.

[1355]

Mr. Speaker, if I could have one creation, it would be for B.C. to lead the nation in the field of innovation for the sake of job creation.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: Yesterday we were discussing the on-the-courthouse-steps settlement between the B.C. Liberals and uranium company Boss Power. The Liberals announced by a press release in April 2008 that they were going to be banning uranium mining in British Columbia, and within weeks Boss Power, a company with an existing claim, was told by the then minister, the member from Kamloops south, that they would be compensated.

But two years went by after the moratorium, hon. Speaker, two years of on-and-off discussions between the Attorney General's ministry and the plaintiff, the applicant in this case, and on March 2, 2010, an e-mail was sent by the chief negotiator that said: "I regret to advise that there has been a change in my instructions. The province is not willing at this time to enter into a negotiated settlement." No explanation as to why the ne-

[ Page 8359 ]

gotiations were terminated, just a brief statement from the government.

Yesterday the House Leader said: "We negotiated in good faith." So my question to the House Leader is this. How is it that a two-year protracted discussion terminated by an e-mail is negotiating in good faith?

Hon. R. Coleman: We did negotiate in good faith, and sometimes negotiations go certain ways where there are times that you step back and you come back with regards to negotiations. I don't know if the member has ever been involved in dealing with a lawsuit on one side or the other, but if he had, he would know that this would not be unusual with regards to negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Now, it may be good faith in the bizarro world of the Government House Leader, but in the world that most people live in…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: …when a minister of the Crown brings the applicant into his office and says, "You will be fully compensated for your claim," the expectation is that that will be accelerated and expeditious.

Two years go by, negotiations are suspended by the government, and Boss Power is forced to seek compensation through the courts. And in the process of seeking compensation through the courts, they discover Douglas Sweeney was terminated from the government of British Columbia as a result of his refusal to disregard his statutory obligation.

So let's recap for the good negotiators on that side of the House. You played around for two years when you had a reasonable case to settle a claim for costs incurred, and instead you delayed, you delayed and you delayed, and that allowed the company to find their star witness who demonstrated public misfeasance and resulted in a $30 million settlement.

Court documents on July 30….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You just spent 30 million bucks, sister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Documents on July 30 said: "Our claim for expropriation now encompasses a broader legal landscape than is focused in your pending application."

So again, your good-faith bargaining cost us $30 million.

Hon. R. Coleman: We actually did bargain in good faith. We came to a settlement on a lawsuit.

I do find it rather humorous that the member opposite wants to tell me how to negotiate or tell this government how to negotiate on a lawsuit.

I mean, let's just talk about a couple of your great experiences with that. First of all, you had the most scathing comment from a judge in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Justice Parrett stated during the Carrier Lumber case: "It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss that seems to carry with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story."

[1400]

That case — which had to be cleaned up by us because of what you did in the 1990s, hon. Member — cost British Columbians well over $100 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The opposition House member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: The only person not clapping is the Minister of Social Development, because she knows she could have used $30 million for a good social purpose.

Now, I know it's just someone else's money to the Premier, but I'll put my question again to the Government House Leader. By bargaining in good faith, by hanging out public servants to dry, by admitting to public misfeasance, we took a basic regular compensation claim and sent it through the stratosphere.

The legal team for the plaintiff, in writing to the government on September 21, said…. I know that the minister doesn't care. It's not his money that we're wasting either, but on the 21st of September, legal counsel for Boss Power wrote to the government suggesting that the plea of malfeasance of public office changes the game. Now the particulars of damages are as follows: damages for lost profits, punitive damages, damages for loss of goodwill, special damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and let's not forget interest.

Again, to the minister responsible, how did your good-faith bargaining go from a reasonable expectation to 30 million bucks?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the member opposite hopes the effect of his question by shouting would do better, but I don't actually need a hearing aid yet because I'm not at that advanced age.

[ Page 8360 ]

I want to remind the member of a couple of things. First of all, I stood in this House yesterday and said that we take responsibility for this decision. We take full responsibility for the decision as government. It was the executive council that made the decision that we would get out of uranium mining in British Columbia.

I know it chokes the members opposite up, because in the 1990s they could have got out of uranium mining, but they refused to do so. They did nothing about it.

But they did manage in the 1990s to blow $166 million in loans, subsidies and other financial assistance to develop another site as a result of Windy Craggy and would be required to pay millions more in compensation to what the arbitrator described as an unreasonable delay by the government. So the members opposite have no place to stand and tell us how to handle a negotiation.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

URANIUM-MINING APPLICATION

BY BOSS POWER CORP.

N. Macdonald: Yesterday's defence has proven completely incorrect. The government did not act in good faith in negotiating with Boss Power. This government purposefully broke the law in dealing with Boss Power. This government destroyed the career of Mr. Sweeney, this province's inspector of mines, because he tried to follow the law. This government paid $30 million to keep this out of court and keep it hidden.

So clearly the government is wrong. Yesterday we asked again and again. It's a simple question. Who is responsible? Was it the member from Kamloops south? Was it the Premier? Who is responsible?

Hon. R. Coleman: The executive council of the province of British Columbia, which is the cabinet and the Premier at the time, made a decision to get out of uranium mining in B.C., did a press release and subsequently, a number of months later, did an OIC to confirm it.

You know what? The reality is that's what we did. The responsibility is here. The buck stops here with government because we're the ones that made the decision to get out of uranium mining and, quite frankly….

I'll just go back to a quote yesterday from Hansard. "I am well aware of the political firestorm that was brewing over the uranium mine. The residents of the area did not want it." That was the MLA for Kootenay West yesterday. We actually did it because we thought it was the right thing to do, and evidently, so did she.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I honestly don't know who the minister thinks he's fooling with an answer like that. I honestly don't know. The fact of the matter is that this is, as much as anything, a window into how this government works. Mr. Sweeney did the right thing. He tried to protect the public interest, and he was purposefully ruined, simply to serve this government's narrow interest — a narrow public political interest. Mr. Sweeney would not break the law, so he was disposed of.

Then we have this government trying to strong-arm Boss Power, and that blows up in this government's face. It is an ethical and financial mess.

The question is simple. It's the same one. Who is responsible for this mess? Who is it?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we made the decision to actually get out of uranium mining in 2008, Finance booked $50 million as a reserve in that particular fiscal year for any civil issues that may come out of the decision. That money was booked, and it was in the fiscal plan. The government knew that there had to be some negotiation settlements with regards to this particular proponent. Negotiations take place over time.

I know that the members opposite would like to tell us how to negotiate and could question each stage of the negotiation, but we actually have pretty exceptional lawyers in the Attorney General's department that actually do that work for us. We don't do that. But you know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the instructions from them or the advice from them was that we would settle this claim for $30 million, and we did just that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Lali: Yesterday the opposition asked over and over again who in this scandal-ridden B.C. Liberal government gave the order to civil servants to break the law. Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun reported comments by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who yelled back: "Nobody. That never happened."

That's incredible, you know, considering the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was the Minister of Mines, and he was also at the helm when this whole sordid mess took place in the first place. Their own court documents admit that the B.C. Liberals broke the law.

So will the minister clarify the comments of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson? Is he saying that the B.C. Liberal government's admission to the court is not true?

[ Page 8361 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, this member was there in the 1990s. In the ruling on Carrier Lumber, again, Mr. Justice Parrett said....

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I can stand here all day.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: "The provincial government chose to cover its own failings and to orchestrate matters to conceal their own breach. Through a series of manoeuvres and self-serving documents, they sought to frustrate Carrier's…."

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me say that again, just so you heard it. "Through a series of manoeuvres and self-serving documents, they sought to frustrate Carrier's harvesting activities and then to proceed with the suspension and eventual cancellation of their licence."

We negotiated a settlement. We did it through our lawyers, and we did it on behalf of British Columbians because we made the decision to get out of uranium mining in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson is pretty quiet today. But here are the facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

[1410]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Member.

H. Lali: Here are the facts. The B.C. Liberal government admitted unconditionally in court documents to knowingly breaking the law, and taxpayers are now paying $30 million for another B.C. Liberal scandal. After seeking legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General, which stated that Mr. Sweeney had a statutory obligation to consider the permit on its merits, the B.C. Liberals still went ahead and knowingly broke the law.

The Liberal court document states: "The province admits that the official, Cavanagh, knew that he did not have the authority to take action and that Cavanagh took action anyway." So it's pretty clear that someone in the B.C. Liberal government gave the orders to break the law.

Yet incredibly, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson — who created this mess, I'd like to remind you again — says that never happened. Yeah, in The Twilight Zone maybe. But for the benefit of the ill-informed member for Kamloops–South Thompson, will the minister please clarify by restating the government's own admission in this House today?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just find it rather interesting that the New Democrats want to sit over there, and I guess they want uranium mining in British Columbia. But then that would be contrary to the comments of the member from Beacon Hill and Leader of the Opposition at the time when she stated in August 2008 — which was, quite frankly, not too long after we made the decision: "New Democrats strongly believe that the nuclear option is not and should never be an option for B.C., and we will continue to speak out against this development here at home and in our neighbouring provinces."

We acted to ban uranium mining in British Columbia. We did it in April of 2008. There was a tender. There's a tenure on the land. Now, I know that the guys on the opposite side would rather just not pay the tenures, obfuscate and play the game like they did on Carrier Lumber, where they went and moved things around. They did a whole bunch of things that the judge found absolutely unbelievable. We negotiated. We came to a settlement, and the settlement was done.

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the minister, the only hiding and moving and shaking around here appears to be happening on that side of the chamber today. So perhaps the Attorney General could actually give an honest answer to this question. It's very straightforward, hon. Speaker.

Government surely would not have entered into this negotiation without an evaluation of the claim. We're trying to determine how much of $30 million of taxpayers' money was spent in this boondoggle. So can the Attorney General stand up and tell this House in a very simple way: did the ministry undertake an independent evaluation of the claim? And if not, why not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Of course we did an evaluation of the subsurface minerals. It's also a pretty complicated process which requires considerable time to the parties. And frankly, the reason there's no negotiation is because as that was being done on both sides, the parties didn't agree to the same number. Surprise. That's why you negotiate a settlement.

The members opposite are trying to find out who is responsible for us getting out of uranium mining and

[ Page 8362 ]

dealing with Boss Power. Right here, hon. Members. Right here. The members of executive council and cabinet made this decision and made it on behalf of the province of British Columbia and evidently — I'm not quite sure, but I think — supported by the members opposite who seem to kind of like uranium mining and don't like uranium mining and do like uranium mining. But we made a decision for the people for the future of the province of British Columbia to protect our environment with regards to uranium mining, and it was the right decision at the time.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister opposite. We've made progress here today. We've had government admit they actually undertook some independent evaluation in the claim, so we know they did not kiss off $30 million without thinking about it.

Having made that admission in this chamber, the question is very simple. We can pretend over there, perhaps, that we're a bunch of yokels over here. But when you enter into negotiations and you've got independent evaluation, you've got nothing to hide. If this government has nothing to hide, then I say: will the Attorney General commit to tabling the evaluations in this House so that B.C. taxpayers can know they supposedly got the deal this government claims they got?

Hon. R. Coleman: Interesting — some of the comments that are thrown out by the members of the opposition across here, particularly the member for Nanaimo.

I know that my government has never been under investigation for taking money from charities. I know that my government has never…. And I know you haven't paid them back yet, you know. I think that's interesting. I think it's interesting that, you know, they get a little sensitive when you tell them a little bit about their own history when they want to be holier than thou, when all we did was we actually made the decision to get out of uranium.

We had a legal tenure. We had to negotiate compensation on the tenure. I know they would rather not negotiate compensation on tenure and send a message to the international community that we would not cooperate with regards to what the value of tenures was in British Columbia. But we believe that's a fundamental piece of this thing and that we did have a responsibility to negotiate a settlement with this company because we were changing the rules, and they already had the tenure.

B. Ralston: This House is against uranium mining in British Columbia, and it's also against taxpayers getting ripped off. The public has a right to know…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: …the real reasons why the B.C. Liberal government paid $30 million in this case. The Auditor General Act provides, by motion of this House, that the Auditor General could begin an examination of this matter tomorrow. Such a motion in my name is tabled. Will the Premier agree today to consent to that motion and get the Auditor General to work on this tomorrow?

Hon. R. Coleman: So we negotiated a deal. The members of the opposition don't like it. That's fine. We actually take responsibility for it. They don't like that. We paid for a tenure that somebody had, a legal tenure on the land, because we changed the land use. They don't like that. They would rather that they didn't make any compensation on anything because that's how they want to do business.

Unfortunately, that's not the way…. The member opposite just brought up an interesting point. He doesn't want to talk about the over $300 million between Carrier Lumber and Windy Craggy that you guys blew out the door. You did it without even thinking about it, and the statements from the judge in the Carrier Lumber thing are absolutely damning on you guys. We negotiated in good faith a settlement on account of tenure. Get over it.

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES REVIEW

C. James: The B.C. Liberals and the minister responsible continue to say there's no crisis at Community Living. But families, caregivers and advocates know differently. Tory Hasting's daughter is turning 19 in a few months. Tory and her husband are doing all the work that should be done. They're trying to set in place a plan of care. They're trying to ensure a smooth transition to ensure that when her daughter's birthday arrives, the supports are in place.

Tory has been told by Community Living that they won't even consider looking at her daughter's case until she turns 19. That means for months there could be no supports in place for this family. The system is failing. It's clear that everyone knows the system is failing, except the minister. So I ask the minister today: will she do her job and call for an independent review of Community Living today?

[1420]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In case members opposite have not heard this in the last number of weeks, I have been hearing from the community, and certainly we have acknowledged, that there are challenges and there are circumstances that we want to see addressed. That's exactly why, in September, we created a deputy minister work-

[ Page 8363 ]

ing group to examine how individuals are supported through a number of ministries in government.

In October we had an internal audit team begin work with CLBC to look at service demand, performance management and cost analysis within the organization. I asked for an interim report from the board chair of CLBC, and I asked for that by November 1 to see exactly how they plan to deliver on their vision of serving clients. And because people are the most important factor in this conversation, I asked for a client support team to be set up to address the urgent issues facing families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: This family, Tory's family, can't wait for interim reports. They can't wait for the minister to get reviews. They need action today on behalf of their daughter.

For the minister's information, Tory Hastings's daughter has received support since she was three years old. Her needs have not changed; in fact, they've increased. Tory's daughter is severely disabled. She's non-verbal. She can't feed herself. She's completely dependent on care and supervision. Tory says that without a plan in place "one of us will have to quit working, which will pose even more hardship for our family and quite frankly terrifies me. It's unfair for government to put families into this dilemma."

A birthday doesn't change Tory's daughter's needs. The complexity doesn't disappear. It's clear that Community Living isn't doing its job when families like this are left in limbo.

So again, on behalf of those families, on behalf of those adults, I ask the minister: will she stand up today, will she do her job, and will she ensure that there's an independent review in place for Community Living so those families can get the supports they so desperately need?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For any family that's going through a transition, and especially a family with a child with a significant disability, these things are challenging and very stressful. I acknowledge that, and I feel for the family who's going through this.

That's exactly why we set up the client support team to make sure that we had ministry officials in place to help people who don't feel that their circumstances are adequately being addressed by CLBC at this time, to work with them right now to get them the support they need.

While we admit there are challenges facing CLBC, and we want to get to the bottom of those challenges, doing that in a responsible way will take time. The review will take some time, as will the audit, both of which I have committed will be made public. But we need to deal with the families who are in crisis now, and that is exactly what the client support team is set up to do.

N. Simons: We should tell the people of British Columbia that when they call the client support team, they're going to be put on hold. They'll be asked who they're really phoning for, and we'll see if they'll get any answers from the government.

I know for a fact this is a crisis that has been going on for 15 months, and we've seen absolutely no action until one minister was demoted and the CEO was fired. Now the minister is saying we're going in a new direction — no idea what direction that is. It's probably still in circles.

This government has no problem throwing away $30 million, and they haven't got enough money to provide for the necessities of families in this province. I find that shameful.

[1425]

They hire a communications consultant whose first job is to create this team, this team of CLBC's — the same people who've been denying services for the past 15 months, the same people who are going to use the same methods for determining that your family is not eligible.

I don't think the people of this province are going to be satisfied. They certainly won't be satisfied in the family of Stephanie Byrne, whose daughter has been requesting services for a long time. Are 2,800 people going to line up to call that client support team? I think that's a little bit much to ask.

What has happened in this ministry? It's complete chaos, and every advocate knows that. Every family who needs services knows that. I'm asking if this minister will finally do the right thing, finally recognize the chaos that her government has created and call a complete top-to-bottom review of Community Living B.C.

Hon. S. Cadieux: You know, Mr. Speaker, what's at the heart of this is that there are families who feel that they're not being adequately supported, and that is absolutely my first and foremost concern.

This government wants to make sure that the services that families need so that individuals with developmental disabilities can be included in their communities and can have safe, supportive places to live are our first and foremost priority, which is why I have ensured that assistance is being put in place to have families feel that there is another alternative for them when they feel they cannot get the response they need from CLBC while we do a thorough review and audit to ensure that the $710 million that goes in to support these individuals is used in the best way possible.

[End of question period.]

N. Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[ Page 8364 ]

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: In the gallery I just noticed that Mr. Roger Sellick is there, a friend of many in this Legislature; a former manager of the Kelowna Airport, the tenth-busiest airport in the country; and now a leader of Tourism Kelowna. Please help me to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in debate we will continue with second reading of Bill 6, intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act; followed by, if there's time, second reading of Bill 4, intituled the Offence Amendment Act; Bill 5, intituled the Personal Property Security Amendment Act; and Bill 9, intituled the Natural Resource Compliance Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations Statutes

Amendment Act, 2011

(continued)

R. Cantelon: I rise to support Bill 6.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second while members get off to other business.

Continue, Member.

R. Cantelon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These amendments will facilitate the harvesting and the processing of lumber on Vancouver Island — that great, green island. I want to say that on Vancouver Island the forest industry is absolutely critical and a key component of the economy of Vancouver Island.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There have been difficult times. I think that sometimes people tend to forget the fact that the markets — for example, in the United States — absolutely, virtually dried up. They reduced to a small fraction of their size.

Often it's said by members of the opposition and others: "Why do we ship round logs? Why don't we mill more lumber?" Certainly, that is the goal of our industry — to add as much value-added effort to our lumber and our products.

It's not always possible. If people aren't buying the product, you can't sell it. You can't just stack it up and hope to ship it for a price later on. It's a component that seems to be missing or an aspect that seems to be lost on the opposition. You need to have markets, and you need to do the marketing.

I want to congratulate, however, the efforts of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation in his previous ministry. What a wonderful job he did in expanding and opening up new markets. Clearly, the flaw in our whole strategy was that we were too dependent on the United States housing market, and in 2008 when it evaporated, it left a great gap in our supply chain. The demand just evaporated.

[1430]

Thankfully, the minister, through his efforts, was able to open up that wonderful market called China, where literally billions of people — a billion and a half people — are now looking at our wood products but much more favourably. A good part of how they're responding is because of our emphasis at home on it. "Wood is Good" became the theme, and we began using wood in our own products and extolling its benefits by showing what wonderful products and what beautiful buildings we can make out of wood.

I use as an example the shellfish research station up in Bowser, a marvellous building. Not only is it built environmentally friendly from its use of water and other supplies, but it's a beautiful example of what wood can do, used as a structural and interior material for finishing. Its curved beams are absolutely magnificent. They're evocative of the ribs of a ship. Anybody who has been there would immediately react to the marvel of the engineering and architectural beauty that has been created there, Madam Speaker. That's one of them.

I'm very happy, in my community as well, to congratulate the Port of Nanaimo, which did a wonderful job in the cruise ship welcoming terminal. It's so often, as anybody who has been on cruises can testify, that you're dumped on an industrial dock, if you go to some countries like Mexico, and you have to make your way through a gauntlet of stalls to find your transportation. Here's a building that showcases the ocean with a beautiful glass vista looking over Gabriola Island and a backdrop of wood panelling and wood beams that really make a powerful statement of the beauty and structural integrity of wood.

I would also like to say that the piece of aboriginal art also in this building commemorates and indicates the significance of the aboriginal community in our community, in Nanaimo.

We now ship more wood than we do to the United States. This is good. We still have to harvest, and I think we appreciate that a balance must occur between the amount of wood we harvest that can be economically converted to lumber and shipped and also the shipment of logs to sustain the forest growth. We still don't cut as much as we could. We underharvest the annual allowable cut, which means we're growing trees faster than we can process them into timber. That's not a bad thing. It's a great green island. It's one of the best places in the world to grow wood fibre.

These amendments will facilitate and streamline the process, and it's in response to many things we have

[ Page 8365 ]

heard from the industry — to make it simpler, to make it easier to harvest wood, to get it to the mills and to ship it overseas as finished lumber. So they'll be welcome.

The woodlot owners will appreciate more flexibility in how they run and manage their operations. Being able to subdivide parts for their own house will enable them to plan better for the security of their future. Certifying, basically, the timber cruising will certainly make it more uniform and standard in terms of how we evaluate timber and get it to the market, get the right logs to the right mill at the right time. I think that's absolutely critical.

Things are moving ahead, and certainly in our community there's a growth of optimism as we hear that TimberWest, in response to the China market, is committed to spending $200 million on new mills and new kilns to meet the growing demand in Asia — in China, particularly. So things are turning around. We look for better things, we look for expanding markets, and we look for more diverse uses of wood.

Recently I was touring Forintek, and we're now exploring and expanding the use of a timber product called cross-laminated timber. Basically, you can think of it in terms of jumbo plywood. It's being used in other jurisdictions in Europe to build up to six- and seven-storey buildings. We haven't used it that way yet, but it would be an ideal thing, again, for ports and industries on the island to pre-manufacture, perhaps, shopping centres or apartment buildings and ship them to other destinations around the world. They can be tilted up and made into buildings, constructed into final buildings.

Right now at Forintek they're examining it to determine its stress resistance to earthquake and other factors. All of these things are going to contribute to our ability to export and add value to our lumber, because certainly we have to manufacture. We have to use all of it that we can.

[1435]

I know that places like Nanaimo Forest Products, formerly Harmac Pacific, certainly have a thirst for the chips and the sawdust and the other parts of the wood that are the results — leftovers, if you want, but they're valuable products to them — of sawmills. We need to encourage and expand the sawmill operations.

This has happened. I mentioned earlier that Western Forest Products is looking at expanding their mills. I was very happy to see and be at the site of the mill in Ladysmith, which opened up for cutting lumber exclusively to China. I understand they have now opened, as well the one in Nanaimo Harbour — again, for shipment exclusively to China. There are more than 25 mills that have been reopened to this market, as well as other planned openings throughout the province.

I think we've turned a major corner. The outlook for lumber sales to China and the rest of the world is expanding. The future looks bright. These amendments will certainly help and support the industry. They will streamline the processes, as we have committed to do. They will make it easier for us to convert timber into sawmill products and take advantage of the world markets.

The people in my area of the community are welcoming these changes. They are very supportive to the forest industry. They are very supportive to the manufacturers and very supportive to the pulp mill operators. They will help expand and support the industry, which has a long and bright future on Vancouver Island.

B. Routley: It is interesting that here we are in the United Nations international year of the forest in 2011, and once again we have got this government coming up with a plan to dismantle the public interest and really to shred any remnants of what remains of the social contract that we have with British Columbians — certainly with B.C. communities and forest workers.

Bill 6 is yet another example of what is, after a decade of saying one thing and doing another, a complete failure. I will go into more detail on why it is a complete failure — their forest policy — to act in the public interest on forest legislation, regulation and policy.

Under Bill 6, in

section 47, one of the things they are asking for is the unfettered right and the discretion of the minister to permit a woodlot owner to remove the private land portion from a woodlot licence. That is what this will do.

We asked for an opportunity to sit down with the ministry staff and hear what was behind this. I was stunned and shocked and surprised by the answer when I asked a simple question. "Exactly what is the benefit to the Crown? What is the public interest?" The answer that I got was: "There isn't any." There is none. This leads me to be very concerned, indeed.

When you look at the history and intent of woodlot licences, I believe they were clearly intended originally to create community stability through managed smaller community and family-supporting woodlots, which envisioned that they were clearly going to affect public interest. The community was concerned about what was happening on our forest land, and they still are today.

As I was digging into this issue a bit further, I discovered that one of the main reasons the woodlot association is now seeking the right to remove private land is because this Liberal government has already given this right to the corporate owners of private lands within tree farm licences.

Now, two wrongs don't make a right. We can't continue down a path where we have already had significant involvement in the Auditor General and looking at what was going on. There were clear issues that were identified — that government was not acting in the public interest. Yet again, another example in the….

[1440]

Let's go back and look at what the B.C. Auditor General inquiry reported out back in July 2008 on the removal of private lands, because there is a real parallel here. Yes,

[ Page 8366 ]

they are smaller in nature, but one of the features of adding a value to a woodlot licence is that the woodlot owner comes with some private land, and they get extra points. Under the legislation there are extra points given for the distance the private land woodlot owner is from the public land. So if he lives closer to it, there are more points assessed, and you're more likely to get the woodlot licence in the first place. The other issue is, of course, that bringing the private land into play in the first place provides for a larger unit in which to practise sustainable forestry in the province of British Columbia.

I might add, hon. Speaker, that I had some experience. Years ago I had a trip to Sweden. I was part of a group that was loosely called the B.C. future forest study group. We had a woodlot owner along on that trip, and I remember the amazement that we all had, actually, when looking at the forest practices in Sweden, where at the time they were actually adding what was agricultural land. It was not high-yield agricultural land, and the forestry representatives in Sweden had decided to plant trees on agricultural land.

I remember that one of the contractors from British Columbia said, "Well, that is not a very wise use of agricultural land," in his view. It wasn't a very good use, he believed, of public dollars and expense to be investing in planting trees on what was agricultural land. What was fascinating was the answer.

The answer from the Swedish forestry representatives was: "We're not just caring about today. We actually care about our children and our grandchildren and future generations in Sweden. We want to ensure that the sustainability is there."

I was and still am impressed when I think back on the sustainable forest practices I saw throughout Sweden. They are very much like the northern region of the province of British Columbia, primarily a pine and spruce area. It was intensively managed. They did pruning, thinning, spacing and planted way more trees. They actually had a first thinning after only the first part of the growing season. Somewhere between 22 and 26 years they would go in and do their first commercial thinning, and that actually was to provide products. The top end of the log primarily went to pulp mills, and the stump end of the log often ended up in wood manufacturing. There was a real difference in attitude.

We once held onto those same values in the province of British Columbia. There was once a social contract, I would say, in the province of British Columbia that has been shredded by this government, completely shredded. They have torn it up and ripped it to pieces, and this is just another piece of what I see as a government that is absolutely bent on destroying the public interest and certainly the public use in the long term.

For a moment I want to camp on the issue of public interest. Let's look for a moment at what Wikipedia says. It says: "The public interest refers to the common well-being or the general welfare. The public interest is central to policy debates, to politics, to democracy and to the nature of government itself."

This government has too often abandoned public interest not just in the TFL land removal but in not acting in a clear and transparent way. Let's just talk about that for a minute.

Some examples. They said one thing to the people of British Columbia — they weren't going to sell B.C. Rail — and then they did.

[1445]

They said that they weren't going to be ripping up contracts, and here in a country that prides itself in our democracy, they ignored free collective bargaining rights. They've ripped up health care contracts. They've destroyed the bargaining rights of paramedics, teachers, and the list goes on. Recently we, of course, had the $2 billion or $3 billion, depending on who's counting, HST boondoggle, which is a clear reminder. The people of B.C. decisively told the B.C. Liberals that they had no interest in being jammed on what was clearly not in the public interest.

Smart meters — another thing. The last number of years I have been on the Select Standing Committee on Finance. It's been real interesting, because you go all over the province of British Columbia and hear from British Columbians on what their needs are. Do you know that not once did I hear anybody come and say: "You know what? We really think we need smart meters." No, not once.

This government, once again, has shown that they really think…. They really should be called "We think we're smarter than the public" meters. That's what they should be called. "We think we know best" meters.

"We're going to go and hammer it on the side of your house. We don't care what you think, people. We don't care. We're going to bring it to a home near you. In fact, it might be coming to your door, whether you like it or not." No consultation. It's an example. No consultation. They talk about democracy.

Deputy Speaker: Member, might I bring you back to consideration of the bill.

B. Routley: Under Bill 6, this is another example, hon. Speaker. It is absolutely a parallel. Where was the public process under Bill 6? Where was the public process under Bill 6 to determine this matter?

We're going to find that out. We're going to go through the bill

section by section. Unfortunately, we're not there yet, so we get the opportunity to talk about…. When you look at Bill 6, it's just another piece that's come down the pike. Here we are in a year where we say we care about jobs.

They say they care about jobs, and then they're busy exporting jobs out of the province just as fast as they can,

[ Page 8367 ]

ramping up log exports and shutting down mills. At the same time, they're introducing legislation to peel out a piece of land that is going to affect the sustainable cut in that land base. That minister knows it. Whose interest is that? How is that in the public interest — to peel out a piece of land?

I do understand. I've heard that one of the other issues in addition to doing the same thing that the corporations were allowed to do….

I can understand why they would start to say: "Well, wait a minute. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why aren't we allowed to get in on the sweet deal and convert our private lands into a cash cow? Why can't we do that?"

As I've already said, two wrongs don't make a right. Public interest has to be taken into account. Looking at the public interest, while nearly everyone would claim that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest or whether the concept itself is even a coherent one.

At one extreme, an action has to benefit every single member of society in order to be truly in the public interest. At the other extreme, any action can be in the public interest as long as it benefits some of the population and harms none. However, it seems obvious to me that the public interest clearly should benefit and not harm the public.

I think that's what we'll hear in a moment, which the Auditor General was getting at. In the last fiasco — that this government carved out the private land as a big gift to their corporate friends and insiders — they had no problem whatsoever just cutting a deal. "Oh well, the public is a little outraged, but they'll get over it."

Just like so many other of these issues that are coming down the pike from this group…. I want to go into what the Auditor General actually had to say.

[1450]

"Overall, the report concludes that the removal of private land from TFLs 6, 19 and 25 was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest."

The report notes that….These are the three bullets, and they apply directly to Bill 6. You know, the minister should pay close attention to this. These are issues that the Auditor said mattered then, and I think they matter now.

"The decisions were not adequately informed. It was based on incomplete information that focused primarily on the forest and range matters and interests of the licensee, with too little consideration given to the potential impacts on other key stakeholders."

Point 2. We've got it all over again. This is it in spades.

"Consultation was not effective, and communication with key stakeholders and the public about the decision was not transparent."

Just, you know, slid off the back of the truck like so many other plans — no understanding for the public, no public meetings.

"The impacts of previous land removal decisions were not monitored to help inform future decisions."

Are we monitoring? We'll get to some of those questions eventually. In due course, we'll have that opportunity, but just a reminder, a heads-up, as the right, fair thing to do.

He goes on in the executive

summary. In part he says:

"The evidence of our review includes key documents and interviews with the ministry staff, with other government staff, WFP and a range of other stakeholders. The material in the report attributed to the minister is based on written responses to written questions."

This is the Auditor saying this.

"When we asked for a meeting with the minister to understand his decision-making process, he was unable to meet us."

This is what the Auditor General had to write in a report on one of the largest land giveaways in the province of British Columbia — a land transfer without any penalty. There was no compensation to the Crown whatsoever, at the end of the day. We know now that the people who are benefiting are the big multinational corporations. That's what we know.

His overall conclusion was: "We concluded that the removal of the private land from these tree farm licences was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest." There it is again.

There is a clear theme all through forest policy in the past. It ought to apply in Bill 6. We're not just talking about some new concept. It didn't just come down the road yesterday. This is a longstanding history in the province of British Columbia where we look at this.

Actually, I want to stop for a minute and talk about the history, look a little deeper at these issues, because for the sake of the public interest, we need to. In something as important as this, something as life-changing in communities, we need to have the facts.

In the 1956 royal commission, Chief Justice Sloan wrote in volume 1, page 93, about the fundamental reasons for creating a tree farm licence, or an FML, as they were known. By combining private and public lands, Sloan wrote:

"In deciding whether or not a forest management licence would be awarded in an area, or to which applicant where more than one applies, first consideration would be given to the relative importance of the individual proposals in fulfilling the functions of a permanent" — hello, permanent — "forest, towards the pre-eminent social and economic objectives that I have described" — for the Crown."

There it is. That's the goal.

"Secondly, consideration should be given to the contribution of the timber and the productive forest land which the applicant is himself prepared to make to the licence. Evidence indicates that these two features have not always been given the first consideration in the award of licences to date" — this is back in 1956 — "yet they are the basic reasons for the award of any licence."

[1455]

First, to repeat, stability of employment — hello, anybody care about jobs over there? — in the dependent communities, and second, the establishment of permanent forestry on these lands.

[ Page 8368 ]

Sloan went on to say: "Permanent forestry on private lands." You know, you think about it. You put together a piece of private land, and in most cases there is more public land added to the licence than there is private land. So if you think about it in the concept of a pie…. You imagine the whole piece as a forest pie, and they're now going to start cutting into that forest pie, based on a sustainable yield.

I read my first tree farm licence back in 1985-86, and I still remember back then that they were planning on harvesting on a rotation age of somewhere around 86 years. That was the plan then — 86 years. Since then they've ratcheted down and ratcheted down to the point where now they are talking…. Some companies are harvesting…. Well, we call it harvesting baby trees, because they're sometimes 35 or 40 years of age. It's, in my mind, unbelievable that on the coast of British Columbia in my lifetime I would see us go from that kind of harvest plan.

But back to my pie. On the woodlot owners, they would be harvesting…. By the way, I would say that there are a lot of good people in the woodlot licences. Over the history of British Columbia, they've done amazing work. I've been to woodlots where you can hardly tell. They've been managed so well that it is just beautiful to behold, much like what I saw in Sweden, in Scandinavian operations where that kind of forestry was practised.

But again, the theory is to take out that slice and then not come around for maybe another 80 years, or in the cases today, some folks are thinking that they want to come around and take their piece of pie in 50 years. I actually used to represent forest workers that worked out here in the Victoria watershed, and I stood at council meetings and defended forest workers. We had a crew of 25 people that were working there, and they were harvesting on a 200-year rotation — 200 years, hon. Speaker. What's really fascinating about that is that the oldest tree on the claim was about 140 years of age.

So we took into calculation the entire land base and started to take little chunks. The plan was to come back to that original piece in 200 years. Now, that kind of forestry doesn't happen too many places in British Columbia. I don't know that there are any woodlot licences that are managing on a 200-year rotation. I remember that Merv Wilkinson was a character who had what everybody would remember as one of the foremost lands in the province of British Columbia.

But at the end of the day, these woodlot licences…. The goal of woodlot licences is to manage and harvest in a sustainable way, in a community-supporting way and, clearly from the history, that it was permanent.

Sloan went on to say if these licensees want to withdraw their private land from a joint forest tenure on Crown land, they should have that right.

However, it must be understood in B.C. policy and legislation that these deletions violated the initial premise of a public-private sustained yield of the forest tenure. These actions would confirm that they no longer had an interest in permanent forestry on these private lands. Therefore, if the private land is withdrawn, it should be declared null and void and the management of the Crown licence returned to the province.

That was the original — back in 1956 — intent of what was to happen, but it was certainly to happen to tree farm licences. In the case of woodlot licences, again, the history and the notion were very much the same. I'm not going to put words in their mouths. I'm going to read what the woodlot owners say themselves.

[1500]

I took the liberty to have a look at their website and to take off the January-February version of the Woodlot Communicator and the March-April version. I just want to quote a few paragraphs, because I think they're instructive. They're very helpful in having us have a more fulsome understanding of precisely who it is that we're dealing with.

I want to read it into the record so the public and those interested at home can have an understanding of, really, what this is all about. They say:

"There is a small but well-organized group of Crown forest managers who have consistently demonstrated their ability to adjust their forest practices to meet many challenges. These are the more than 850 woodlot licensees in the province who manage a small but significant piece of the provincial forest harvest.

"Compared to other forest tenures, woodlot licences are very unique in their tenures. Many woodlots are in an interface between forests and urban or industrial areas. Woodlots often have recreational uses such as hiking, biking and horseback riding. There are usually many eyes watching the operations…yet there are few complaints."

Up until this point. We're definitely hearing from people now. This is a brand-new day. People hadn't imagined that this kind of thing could come their way. They go on.

"The diversity found in many forest ecosystems in this diverse province is reflected in the woodlot licensees. Many are ranchers or farmers whose woodlots are adjacent to or near their private lands, their family homes and communities. Numerous woodlots are purposely intergenerational."

Now, there's a point. They had a plan, just like the Swedes that I ran into. They had the notion that their children and grandchildren and future generations were going to be handed and were going to manage these lands, and not only in the interests of the family members and the generation that would be supportive of the communities in which they lived and interfaced. Certainly, they would be supporting the fibre supply basket in the province of British Columbia.

By the way, I want to stop there. I heard the member say that we've got this overcut. You know, they want to talk about the coast on the overcut, at the same time ignoring that we've got a massive overcut in the northern part of the province in all the pine beetle region. We've been overcutting for years because of the pine beetle. We've been aggressively managing that land.

Why? To get the maximum use out of those pine stands prior to the death of those forests. It made sense

[ Page 8369 ]

to do that, and I understand that. I support the thinking that it's better than just letting it die. We had to get some value. So at the end of the day we've been harvesting it at accelerated rates.

You know, there are forest economists. Russ Taylor gave an interesting review of what's about to happen in the next five, ten years. He talked about the fact that the cut has to come down. In fact, it's already started to come down. We've had a million-cubic-metre reduction.

Again, to put that in perspective for those people at home, a cubic metre is roughly a telephone pole–sized tree. There are roughly 35 to 40 cubic metres on a highway logging truck. A sawmill might consume somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 cubic metres in a year. A pulp mill might consume two million cubic metres of chips. But a million cubic metres is actually a fair volume, and it's already started to come down.

It's going to have to come down, according to Russ Taylor, between 25 and 35 percent — in that range, somewhere around there. At the end of the day he's talking about maybe 20 mills going down. That's certainly within the next ten, 20 years, maybe sooner, depending on what is happening with a real examination of the fibre supply.

[1505]

I want to say again that I am frustrated, hon. Speaker, when I hear from forest professionals and they tell me: "We don't have a good inventory." I asked the professional foresters association, "What's your number one issue," and without hesitation they said: "We need an updated inventory."

Then we hear there's a big controversy about what NSR is. First of all, they want to have a big debate about how NSR is "not sufficiently restocked land," so the argument goes like this. If you don't log it and if it's just dead and dying because of the pine disease, somehow that doesn't count. You don't have to count that in the calculation at all because what you want to do is talk about land that has been logged, and then you're talking about NSR land as it applies to that land.

We've got huge volumes, somewhere around 80 million hectares. Maybe it's 90 million hectares by now; I don't know. The last I heard it was around 80 million hectares. A hectare is like 2.4 acres or thereabouts, so you're talking about a huge, vast area of British Columbia that has some percentage of dead and dying pine. It's dramatic.

Deputy Speaker: Member, your 30 minutes has elapsed. Are you the designated speaker?

B. Routley: I am the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

B. Routley: I was just getting started, thank you.

Interjections.

B. Routley: There is. And I'll tell you, the jiggery-pokery…. I don't need encouragement from the other side.

Hon. Speaker, it just shows. They're begging because they know that it's something they really…. They sit there in their reflective moments, and they smile to themselves, and they say: "He's got it right. That's what it is." There's jiggery-pokery going on, and we're going to be maybe doing some more of it tomorrow and then again the next day. It'll be jiggery-pokery once again, more changes that are dramatic and disastrous for the people of British Columbia.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for that reminder that my time is frittering right before my eyes. It's like the sands of time. It goes by so quickly.

I was having a wonderful time explaining the various issues in forest policy in the province of British Columbia that are quite alarming, and I want to get back to what these woodlot licensees say.

In the January-February pamphlet of theirs they talked about how the United Nations declared 2011 the year of the forest. You know, this group hasn't done a lot of talking about the year of the forest. Why do you think that is, hon. Speaker? I think I'll hazard a guess: because this is the same government that has eliminated…. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, in the year of the forest, we no longer have a Ministry of Forests. It's sad. It's really, really sad. It's tragic.

Especially, I talked to the…. I shouldn't call them old-timers. They're fine, upstanding senior citizens in the province of British Columbia. I'm an old-timer. There are folks, though, that I have talked to that are really quite depressed when they think about how sad it is, what the former Minister of Forests used to be all about and where you have come today. It is really, really quite disappointing indeed.

In their January-February paper they said:

"Since the interception back in 1979, the woodlot licence program, which is unique to the forestry sector worldwide, has entrusted provincial Crown land to a diverse and dedicated group of foresters who manage this publicly owned resource under strict guidelines. The result is one of the most progressive and innovative methods of simultaneously protecting the forests" and generating revenue.

[1510]

Here's one I really like.

"B.C. is an industry leader in sustainable forestry."

Back to the pie. We can't have sustainable forestry if you just take a huge chunk of the pie out. That's what happened in the case of tree farm licences all over the province when they took out the forest land. I know the one that I was certainly familiar with, TFL 46. Roughly a third of the land was private land. When you take out that much land, you've got to think about the fact that over the past 50 years they've been taking slices of that pie, primarily because of the larger size of the Crown part of the tenure.

[ Page 8370 ]

Primarily they were harvesting at levels on the Crown land using that one-third of their private land as part of the so-called sustainable yield. By including that land, of course, they were able to cut more forest on the Crown or public tenure.

When the government allowed, after all those years…. You know, 50 years or so of harvesting, year after year, and you're following a plan. Let's just use the 86 or 87 years. If they were 40 or 45 years through the cut and suddenly you take out the private land forest portion, what you've done is make every annual cut on the Crown land wrong — every single one. You've been harvesting at rates that are not correct.

Now, in most cases the companies had to do a recalculation of where they were at with their volumes when they took out the private land, and they were of course going to flip some real estate. I've been there at the meetings and heard the companies talk about…. They use a new grand word. The new grand word is "higher and better use." Go figure.

At the time, 50 years ago, it was the best thing since sliced bread: "We've got to have tree farm licences. We've got to have woodlot licences. We're going to manage this province sustainably in absolute perpetuity for the benefit of the people of British Columbia." Now this government comes along: "Oh, that's so yesterday. Throw it out like yesterday's news. Throw it out with the bath water. It's just gone."

Now all of those years of planning…. Think about those foresters and people that were out there cruising the timber and looking at the land base in a more precise way. They were planning carefully.

Have you ever been into the mapping room, where they map out…? They show all the rivers and streams and the roads and the bridges. They start looking very carefully at each particular land base and harvesting very carefully, setting out the cutblocks, setting out the roads and managing in what they thought at the time was a long-term sustained yield — a plan to harvest the land in perpetuity.

I was at those meetings. In fact, I've got to tell you, and it's kind of an interesting story. I still remember back in the '80s. I was supposed to be representing the forest workers and trying to keep them on the job, and I had a group of fallers from Renfrew. They downed tools. They said: "No, we're not having any more of this. They're bringing another contractor into our claim."

I still remember that one big faller who looked at me and said: "Here's the company comes in and they tell us: 'It'll be okay, boys. It's going to be okay. There are trees forever, and we're logging in a sustainable way. In perpetuity we're going to be logging. You'll still be here. Your grandchildren will be able to come here and carry on work.'"

The fallers, they said: "We don't believe it, Bill. It's not right. We know there's something wrong when we have to jump in a crummy…. We used to have to drive for a half-hour to find a tree big enough to cut down. Then we had to drive for an hour to find a tree big enough to cut down." Pretty soon they're driving two and 2½ hours to find a tree big enough to cut down. They knew. They drove those roads. They knew that it was going to take a long time, and they knew that there was a real problem bringing someone new in to start cutting.

[1515]

You know, we had a big meeting in the town hall there. I remember there was a fellow…. Graham Bruce, actually, was there, and Claude Richmond, I think, was the other character from the past that came in there. They came in, and they assured us all. If it could've been violins and flowers and candles, they would have had that too. They were there in the hall saying: "Fellows, trust us. Just trust us. It's going to all work out in the end. It's going to be beautiful. It'll be wonderful. We're going to take care of you fellows. Just trust us." At the end of the day, sadly, where did it leave them?

I want to reiterate, in part…. Before I move away from these woodlot associations, I took the time to look at their document. They have a woodlot association vision, and I really like vision 8(A). It's short and to the point and punchy. It says that their goal is "to promote excellence in sustainable forest management."

If that's the case, sustainable forest management, my question and my challenge to the minister is: how? How do you take out the private land base and then tell us that it's in the interest of the Crown, when all these years they've been harvesting on a so-called cutting plan that's supposed to bring about sustained yield? It was all about the public interest. It was done to help the community. The community is interfacing with the woodlot licences. It was all part of a wonderful vision to create sustainability.

I'll be interested in the minister's views of what the purpose of the act was and how they have decided to skate away and depart from the original concept and plan. Exactly what has changed? What new day?

Again, I've been on these committees, and we've been all over the province. There's a public process for people to come and make their presentations on issues.

I ask any of the folks on the other side: did they hear anybody come and say they think it's a really good plan that we should give away some of the land that's on our private land because there might be some people reaching an age where they want to slice and dice and cut off that land and maybe make a bagful of money? Who would they make that bagful of money for? Who do you suppose that would be benefiting? You know that at the end of the day there's going to be somebody benefiting.

The other thing. You go back and look at their vision. In point No. 5 they talk about how "woodlot…owners will participate in a healthy and diverse forest industry with woodlot licences and private forest lands making

[ Page 8371 ]

significant contributions to local communities and providing" — wait for it — "a sustainable supply of forest products."

Now, just how are we going to have a sustainable supply of forest products through Bill 6 and the actions of Bill 6? How is that going to bring about a sustainable supply, giving up land that is now part of a woodlot?

It's a mystery. It's an absolute mystery. It is jiggery-pokery if you can pull this one off, if you can convince folks that "oh yeah, we can take this on, and there's no impact whatsoever; yeah, that's just wonderful; oh well, it was there, and that was yesterday, and now it's gone."

Sustainability. We've a whole new

interpretation. Instead of being sustainable at 80 or 50 years, maybe we can be sustainable at ten or 15 years. How about that? You can have ten years, maybe. What about that? Is that the plan? I guess we'll find out.

Anyway, I want to reiterate, and this is the Auditor General. He was clear. He said: "Overall the recommendation was not clearly supported by ministry analysis to demonstrate how the removal on the terms proposed was in the interests of British Columbia."

[1520]

Here we are again, and I don't want to deviate from that theme. It's important; it's principle. People in this Legislature for years during the '50s, during the '60s, during the '70s, during the '80s, that wonderful decade of the '90s that the other side likes to talk about….

Interjection.

B. Routley: They like to remind us regularly. Anyway, there it is.

The issue was, and he goes on: "The minister was the final check…." The minister might want to take note of this. "The minister was the final check in the process and the statutory decision-maker, but, given the importance of the decision, he did not do enough to ensure that due regard was given to the public interest."

This was the Auditor General. The ink's hardly dry. This was in 2008. We got a fresh opportunity to reflect back on the recommendations. They were well-thought-out, well-documented. You know, he made some really important points that this Legislature and everyone in here ought to consider before embarking on any changes under Bill 6.

It goes on: "The minister…." You know, there it is. It's that "public interest" in the final quote. This government has in the past accepted them, and I know they don't like it. They squirm a bit and might even get excited again that they accepted huge donations from forest companies and other major players. And, you know, you hate to think, don't want to think the worst. I really want to try to have hope in the province of British Columbia, but it does lead one to ponder in a case like this, in particular, where the public interest is. Where is it?

This bill leaves a very uneasy feeling indeed about just who this government is acting on behalf of. Is it the people of British Columbia? That's what we're all here to do — to represent to the best of our ability the good people of the province of British Columbia — and we try to do that every day. When we come into this place, I'm in awe of the responsibility that we have, and I think often that when we walk in here, literally we're on the stage in front of British Columbians, who have a right to expect that we're here every day, thinking about what we can do to make things better for British Columbians. This gives me a very uneasy feeling indeed.

I believe that we have to act always in the public interest, and you do have to ask yourself: "Is there some kind of financial interest?" or "Whose interest is this going to benefit?" Someone will benefit. When you make a change like this that affects land use, always someone is going to benefit.

I think I've made it perfectly clear that there's really only one answer for the province of British Columbia. There ought to be. If we were in front of the people of B.C. and they had a big green button and a big red button and I was to ask the question, "Hit the green button if you believe the forests of British Columbia, based on what I've just told you, are to be managed for the benefit and the interest of the public," they would hit the green button without question — without question, hon. Speaker.

The Auditor General goes on. He says, "Meanwhile the ministry is not adequately monitoring its other land removal decisions to better inform future requests," and I must comment that I fear that this government hasn't learned a thing from the past. The Auditor General reports on a similar issue, the removal of private land in the case of the tree farm licence, and now we are here with woodlot licences.

The common denominator is that the majority of the land is public, and the offer to the Crown was made at least in part because the private land was added to make it a bigger and better woodlot licence. In the current case the private land was offered up, and certainly not just as a benefit to the woodlot owner. I would suggest that it was clearly offered. Again, when you review the legislation, you see the points that are awarded, extra points. If you, based on the land — how close you are to the land, all of those kinds of details….

[1525]

Clearly, it was envisioned from the outset that this was going to be there. It was going to be a fine thing indeed, and it was going to be managed in perpetuity.

I know things change. People still have the option to take their land out. It's not like it's impossible for them to take their land out, but they forfeit the Crown portion back to the Crown.

If there are some other ideas that the woodlot owners have, I want to hear from them, in terms of the sustainability question. How can we, in good faith, as

[ Page 8372 ]

representatives of the public of British Columbia, act in the interest of the good people of B.C. if we're not standing up and ensuring that at the end of the day every piece of land is going to be there now and in perpetuity?

I still remember something my grandfather said. I should have listened more; I did listen a bit. I bought some land. My grandfather, who came from Saskatchewan, used to say: "Buy land. They're not making any more of it." If I was smart, I would have run…. I saw one guy on the greenchain. I remember he was buying up land. He's a multi-millionaire today. He was a teacher, and he was working in the summer on the greenchain. I got to know this guy. He quit the mill and went out. He was pumping every spare dollar — never mind into RSPs; he was buying land.

Land is the critical issue at the end of the day, and it was from the outset. That land was offered up. Why? To attract a benefit from the Crown. That benefit also transferred onto their taxation. That can't be missed. We can't miss the point that all of these years they've been taxed at a dramatically lower rate on the land that is both Crown and certainly private land that's offered up as part of a woodlot licence. It's taxed lower.

I remember when, back in 2000 and 2001, the Youbou mill closed. We were taking a close look at the impact of Crown stumpage versus what the company was paying on their private land. I remember at the time I was shocked and surprised that in the annual report of TimberWest they were bragging that they only paid, I think it was, $2.97 or $2.98 per cubic metre on average in tax, through taxation. They didn't pay stumpage on their private land timber, but on their Crown land timber they were paying almost ten times that. They were paying like 30 bucks a cubic metre back then and down to, you know, less than three bucks — a no-brainer that was. It was very profitable, in their mind.

I might add that at the time they shut down the Youbou mill, it made a million dollars, but they could make more exporting logs. That's the case in some places today. The problem isn't that they weren't profitable. The issue is you can make a lot more money, and you can stuff your pockets and be part of the 1 percent if you can cash in at the expense, certainly in my view, of the community in that case.

Bill 6 has some other features. I don't know how my time is doing. I don't want to miss the opportunity to talk about timber cruising versus scaling, because that's another feature.

Part of this bill is they're going to create a whole new category. They want to create a technical timber cruiser category. The timber cruiser in the past has had to be overlooked by a forester, somebody who was a licensed professional forester. One of the features of the new bill, as I understand it…. We're going to get some more questions into the details of that, but there are at least one or two new categories of licence that this bill contemplates. It's talking about timber cruising, making that a real category versus a forester.

[1530]

I do want to say, with respect to the timber cruisers…. I remember talking to timber cruisers. It's kind of like the difference…. You know, the timber cruiser takes his lunch, and he goes out on a real nice day. Maybe the sun comes out, or maybe it starts to rain. If it is raining and cold or snowy, they get it. I'm told. They were able to be transparent with me, because I wasn't going to do any firing. I wasn't their boss; I was their workers representative.

They used to tell me that on a real bad day, they might stay in a tent. It was kind of like this thumbnail. They'd look and say: "Well, you know, there's probably 400 to 600 cubic metres in that area." On the sunny days, they really launched into a full-blown effort to tape off the area. They'd make sure that they had a clear understanding of precisely what was cruised in that area.

[D. Black in the chair.]

But we should all understand that there is a big difference between volume…. Timber cruising can calculate volume. I talked to the guys down at the dry-land sort who used to say that if a timber cruiser was out by 10 or 20 percent on his cruise, he was out by 10 or 20 percent all the time. They could almost take that to the bank.

But the real calculation, the one that was important, not only to the company but clearly to the Crown, particularly on the coast of British Columbia…. Heaven forbid that this government…. That would really be jiggery-pokery if they ever contemplated moving to a plan where we were timber cruising on the coast because of all the different timber values — cedar, spruce, yellow cedar, fir, Douglas fir, all the valuable timber.

On the coast of British Columbia roughly 60 percent is hemlock, but there are big, vast differences between the value of individual trees within a stand. So you can't…. Timber cruising…. They're trying to apply this method to the Interior, particularly to the pine beetle region, as I understand it.

The concept is that you've got 35 percent, I think it is — or plus or minus — that are dead and dying trees. Then we're going to do a timber cruise, and people are going to bid. They're going to buy the whole package — twigs and all. They're going to pay for everything — the waste. They can waste it if they want. They can pay what they pay.

I'm told, and I have no reason to disbelieve them…. The folks that gave me the update on what was happening with this bill suggested that normally they bid a little higher than 25 cents a cubic metre, but all you have to do is look at the revenue to the Crown. It has been falling like a rock. I would think that we would be very interested in ways to promote extracting maximum value.

In fact, one of the key obligations of the minister of…. Well, I'll just call him the minister of permits. I hope

[ Page 8373 ]

that's okay with you. It's kind of transferred from what used to be the Minister of Forests. Now we've got Lands and Natural Resources. But the real focus today seems to be…. You know, they got rid got rid of as many staff as they could, and they've cut to bare bones, and now they go: "We have got to get $24 million from somewhere and add back some staff."

We're not focused on compliance and enforcement, by the way, hon. Speaker. I want you to be assured that this government has no interest in more money for compliance and enforcement. No, that would be in the red-tape category that they like to go…. They think that's red tape. I don't think that's red tape. They promised the people of British Columbia way back in their so-called revitalization…. Boy, any more revitalization and we couldn't stand ourselves.

We've lost 35,000 full-time jobs under these guys' plan, and they claim to come into this House and have a jobs plan? And by the way, there's nothing there — no help for the forest workers at all. They know that there's going to be a huge transition coming. As the pine beetle cut comes down, there's got to be training and retraining.

[1535]

The studies in the province of British Columbia show that many forest workers don't have a lot of education. You know, I understand that. I really do. I understand how so many forest workers just were attracted away from school because of the fact that at one time in our industry in the province of British Columbia there were jobs aplenty. So people went for those jobs.

Now we're going through a massive change, a tremendous, tumultuous change in the province of British Columbia that is going to affect the north forever. As those mills have to come down because of the pine beetle situation, we need to have a plan, and we should have a plan to connect those forest workers who are losing their jobs.

But I am attempting to go far afield from Bill 6, so I want to get back to the bill. This bill is just another example of how this government failed to listen to the Auditor General the last time, because here we are just a few years later. "Oh, that's so far in the rearview mirror. We have done so many deeds after that." The government is, I'm sure, thinking that way.

We come into this place, and the first thing we hear is some big announcement that we're going to have a jobs plan. Then they act totally opposite to their jobs plan interest, which is their own interest, and plan to reduce the amount of fibre that's available in the wood basket of British Columbia by limiting the very land that we're going to need now and in the future.

It's really quite frightening. It's stunning. But you know, if you've got a government that thinks in short blocks of time, four year blocks of time…. "What can we do for now? Tomorrow is not really all that critical to look at." Well, I think it is. It is critical to think about.

We can't use words like "sustainability." We can't talk a good talk about family-supporting jobs and then go and take the wood basket, that land that is not growing any bigger. And we're going to yank it out.

Do you know the huge demands on our private lands and our Crown lands all over the province of British Columbia? Forest land is being carved up for transmission lines, for pipelines. We've got new roads and bridges even introduced in this latest jobs plan. Part of that will shrink the available land base forever. So we're not making more land.

Seriously, hon. Speaker, both sides of the House should take a sober second look at this and be saying: "Wait a minute. What are we doing here? Is this in the interest of the Crown? Is this in the public interest?"

There needs to be a clear need to ensure that we have the public interest met when we're dealing with one of B.C.'s most valuable assets, our public forest lands, and once again, I fear it's being ignored. So we have a number of important questions to ask as part of this process. In some ways, I think the process is a little backwards — that we get to do a speech and then ask questions. But eventually we're going to get to ask some thought-provoking questions.

Just one of the questions that I think we need to ask is: who is going to benefit? That's our role as opposition for the people of B.C. We need to ask thought-provoking questions about who is going to benefit, why we're doing this and where this is going in terms of who it's going to benefit and what it will mean for communities as well as the individual.

I mean, there's no question that individuals are impacted and have a great interest in what the government might do. But the idea that we can have the minister decide one day…. The legislation is going to allow him, essentially, the unfettered right. The minister decides. You know, that's not a very comforting situation.

There's no panel. There are no public meetings that are promised that will have…. There may be public meetings, but they're not going to be determinative. It's not like, "Well, the public has spoken," and like the HST, they can throw it out. There's some process to stop it. They're not offering any process to stop it.

[1540]

Clearly, we have to be concerned about and get to the bottom, if we can, on exactly where this did come from. Like, where did this come from? As I said, I've been on the select standing committee, travelling the province. Not a single person has said: "You know, we have nothing better to do this afternoon. Let's go away and give the private land portion of the woodlot licences up just because we can."

As an opposition, we have an obligation to put you to the test if this is in the public interest and to be perfectly clear about how this will work out at the end of the day.

[ Page 8374 ]

I wanted to review the promises that were made. You know, you look back on the promises that we had by this government, and the parallels are so similar that we need to, notionally at least, look at how we got here and how there is this continuing pattern.

Back in 2001 we had, at the end of the day…. They called it a new era. Get this, hon. Speaker. We were going to have a new era of sustainable forestry. My, my. Whoops. Sustainable forestry we were going to have. Well, that hasn't been working out so good.

It said in there that they were going to be the leading edge — "globally recognized for their productivity and environmental stewardship," I might add — and the Premier at the time said we need "to make our forest industry strong again and ensure a bright future for forest workers."

Since that time 35,000 jobs are still today…. Like, we looked at the math, the numbers. You add back some of the jobs and, yes, we did our research, and it showed that there are some 24 mills that have come up, and maybe some of them down again. There were also more mill closures. But at the end of the day, the final analysis, we're still down 35,000 forest industry family-supporting jobs, and certainly, value-added opportunities have become almost non-existent.

So that was back…. We were going to have a new era, and sustainability was the theme. Then a couple years later we were going to have forest revitalization. Do you remember that one? That was going to be a bright new day for all British Columbians. We were going to have forest revitalization.

At the time I remember three major forest companies. I was there. I heard the offering. They went around to communities all over the province of British Columbia, and they had a really good plan that they thought they could offer up to the people of B.C.

"We're going to invest a billion dollars," they said. "We'll invest a billion dollars in the province of B.C. Just give us a free rein. We want to put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop. We want to do away with all this red tape because — my, my, my — it's in the way of doing what we need to do, and it's going to be so wonderful. We're going to revitalize the province." There was going to be investment.

Do you remember that? Does it have a vague ring? You know, it's the same…. And they sold us that bit, and they gutted the forest legislation, laid off thousands of jobs in the province of British Columbia. The facts are…. You talk to any forester: when was the decade of the best forest practices in the province of British Columbia? Right here when the NDP was in charge, absolutely. We had the best forest practices in the world.

I was very proud. I had the opportunity to go over to the European countries, and I stood up, and I said: "You know, it's not true. It is not true what Greenpeace is saying, that we're overharvesting our land. We have a real plan to take care of the forests of British Columbia, an aggressive plan to take care of the forests of British Columbia." Every forester that you talk to today, if you ask him: "When were the good old days, if you were a registered professional forester…? Eh?"

Interjections.

B. Routley: And there's the guy; there are the boys. They're chirping over there. At the end of the day, they led the charge to the largest number of jobs lost in the history of British Columbia, and they're proud of it. Yeah, back in 2001 — 11,300 jobs lost, public sector workers.

[1545]

You're the rottenest employer in the history of British Columbia, rottenest, and I really feel good about being able to tell you that. You're rotten to the teachers; you're rotten to the health care workers. You presided over the largest mass firing of women and immigrants in the history of British Columbia: 8,000 people and their families. That is the reality.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, can I remind you, please, to address your remarks through the Chair.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think I need to refocus my frustration, but there's plenty of it — years of broken promises, year after year after year of the same kind of language. It was going to be new era. Then it was going to be forest revitalization. We had the heartlands strategy. We had so many golden fingers or whatever it was that they were going to give us. We know how that worked out.

It didn't work out for British Columbians. I can tell you that. At the end of the day forest communities all over British Columbia got the shaft. This government has given the forest industry the keys to the chicken house. The foxes are fully in charge, and they're running things. They're having a great time.

You know, when you look back…. Let's just talk about the facts on some of those impacts, how deeply this provincial government has been cutting the Forest Service. This is an old

article that I'm reading from, but they talk about and they're reflecting back to the good old days.

They say that there used to be 42 district offices in the province of B.C. in communities all over B.C. that represented real British Columbians. On the ground you could go to your district Forest Service office. And now less than half remain. According to the B.C. government employees union, over 1,004 or 1,006 jobs have been eliminated, a lot of them in compliance and enforcement.

If you go back and look at the record, this is the same government when they brought in their notion…. Do you remember the promise of: "We're going to do away with this regulation"? "We're going to have this new light

[ Page 8375 ]

touch on regulation, but boy, we're going to be real serious. There'll be million-dollar fines."

There was going to be jail time if you didn't follow the requirements of the act. They were going to get tough. It was like getting tough on crime. They got tough on crime, all right. Now if you're a compliance and enforcement officer in the province of British Columbia, you're lucky if you've got enough money for pens and ink. Never do they have enough money to get in their car and turn the key on and actually go anywhere. That's what the reality is. They keep cutting budgets to the point where people can't do the job.

Let's have a look at this. This report says we've only got a handful of field staff left that are now responsible for over two million hectares, a thousand times more per forester than Sweden here in the province of British Columbia — a thousand times larger area for each forester.

You know, Roosevelt once observed…. He talked way back when about having forest rangers, and he said: "If the land goes unprotected" — these are important words — "and the laws that are set in the land are set aside, it becomes meaningless." If you do away with compliance and enforcement and don't have boots on the ground out to do the job, it is a failure to the people of British Columbia. We're failing the communities of British Columbia, and we're certainly failing the future environmental needs and concerns of this province. I am really concerned about what we see going on.

You look at that, some of the impacts. Let's go over…. Let's see if there were any good ones. Let's look for them. There's got to be one. I've got to live in hope. There's got to be one or two real good ones, maybe a gem hidden in here. This was the revitalization.

So they eliminated cut control. What did that do? Well, cut control required them to cut plus or minus 50 percent of their annual cut within 10 percent after five years. Well, now we can lose jobs and they can leave an entire area sitting dormant — no problem, no problem whatsoever, no requirement.

[1550]

I want to talk about that for a minute. Here's an example, in fact — Western Forest Products, which the Premier was glad to stand next to, just the other day, with this bagful of hot air that they had. There were no real promises in terms of what they were going to do, but they were there.

Just in this last six months we had workers who had been sitting home for almost two years. The Duke Point mill has been down almost two years, and they just started up with a skeleton crew. The workers feel betrayed by the company. They know that the mills all over Western Forest Products are not running at full capacity, and they feel like that mill was started up just to cheat them out of their severance pay. Almost two years, and they start up the plant on a skeleton crew.

You know, it's a pattern that we're seeing in other places too. I think it's mean-spirited. Right now we have way less than a third. Those two mills — they're just within a stone's throw, almost, of each other — across the water have way less than a third of what those two plants used to have put together when they had crews of 140 to 160 people working. So they're working at a skeleton crew.

Interjections.

B. Routley: Of course, I'm delighted that people are…. I hear somebody has woken up, and they are obviously wounded. They're wounded because they know the truth of what I speak. They know that it hurts. It's a result of their actions, a result of eliminating appurtenancy clauses all over the province of B.C. They eliminated appurtenancy clauses and thousands of workers have lost their jobs because of the actions of people like that, who don't care a bit about forest workers and their families.

It's just like this bill that we're talking about today. We're talking about a bill that hasn't taken into account the public interest. They have no interest in talking to the people of B.C. They just go ahead and do whatever they want. Talking about clawing back forest tenure, we lost 20 percent of every tree farm licence in the province. Over a thousand forest workers lost full-time, family-supporting jobs.

And we've got B.C. Timber Sales that can't make a buck. They're losing money. We're babysitting them. It's unbelievable, and it's unacceptable what's happened on this government's watch. Timber auctions — they've got a timber auction plan. Hon. Speaker, I don't think these guys could sell lemonade at a lemonade stand. In fact, if they had a lemonade stand, you know what they'd do? They'd take away the real lemons for sure. They would bring in the artificial kind. They might….

I can just see a poor little Liberal kid there standing on the corner with his…. "Well, we don't have real lemons. My mom says we don't have the money for sugar either. We're going to add one drop of Realemon from concentrate." That's what we're going to get — lemons but not the real thing. That's the problem. The province of British Columbia needs the real thing, and we're sick and tired of just a fake government that's making it up as we're going along.

On a more serious issue, hon. Speaker, it's really quite sad. I defended our province on the record that we had as environmental stewards. And to be good environmental stewards, one of the clear things that have to happen is….

You know, the Liberals once talked about having boots on the ground to really do enforcement and compliance. If they had actually done what they said they were going to do…. Like so many other things that don't seem to happen, it's just another takeback plan. They do this jiggery-pokery and big announcements, and there's more.

[1555]

[ Page 8376 ]

They bring in the communications people and bring in the load of lumber for the Premier to stand beside and say: "Oh, it's going to be wonderful. Trust us. It'll be so good. It'll be beautiful." But the facts are that in less than a decade British Columbia has gone from an environmental leader to, really, a laggard in terms of stewarding one of our most important natural resources, and it could not come at a worse time, as we grapple with climate change and horrendous impact on our forests in what was once one of the greener jurisdictions on earth.

A major reforestation crisis is underway. We have a major crisis. Every year that goes by, it's like a deficit. We've got a failure to keep up. The NSR land numbers are shameful. It's horrendous. The silviculture contractors talk about the need to do more reforestation. I remember when I went to Sweden. They were literally planting five times what we were doing in British Columbia. They were, as I say, tending their forest in a real, renewable way. They had aggressive spacing, thinning and pruning.

I've seen with my own eyes, right outside of Duncan. You go up to Hill 60. I'd be glad to take the minister on a tour and have a look at what happened there. It's all overgrown. I had a Swedish forester who was over here on a tour, and he said that if we're not careful, we'll be growing pulp crops. Why? Because it's just like a carrot patch. If you don't do the thinning, you are going to have lower value timbers. You've got hundreds and hundreds of trees struggling to get light, and they're not sufficiently thinned.

Sadly, we have no plan. There's no plan by this government to deal with forest health — not a real forest health plan. There's not a real plan to deal with fire mitigation issues. How many years since we had the Filmon report? There seems to be…. These guys are out to lunch when it comes to any kind of a real plan. There's no plan to sit down with communities and make that happen in a more aggressive way. We're so far behind.

I'll be interested in hearing from the minister how we're doing in that regard. I think the last time I heard, wasn't it 3 percent or in that range? It was stunning to me — the fact that we were so far behind in a real strategy to help mitigate the potential impacts of fire to communities.

Certainly, that's one of the benefits, by the way, I might add, of small woodlot licences. When you've got families relying on that tenure for a livelihood, one of the things they do is manage it so well that fire is not really a problem. I mean, sure you can still have a lightning strike, but in terms of dead and dying and woody debris being left about, they take care of that. It's more intensively managed when you have people that are looking at it. But I am very concerned about the ongoing sustainability and the potential impact that that might have.

I do want to conclude by saying that I want to question the minister more about the potential impact. Are log exports somehow going to be impacted by this change? I have to say that the rising log exports from the coast….

I come from a coastal mill. You can understand some of my passion when you understand that I used to work day in and day out with people every day at the Youbou mill. We went through…. It was a terrible situation to go from a mill that was making a million dollars to be told we're shutting down one day. All of those family-supporting jobs, more than 220 jobs, lost — just like that. This company just said: "They're gone."

They, in their annual report the next year, announced that they'd ramped up log exports by 85 percent — okay? Now, we've seen ups and downs, but log exports are once again in a huge and growing number, particularly on the coast of British Columbia. I would add, based on what I've laid out here today on the problems with the northern part of British Columbia and the AAC decline, that that's going to have to happen there.

[1600]

You know, I've heard from the truck loggers and others the notion that there's some kind of undercut, that we could actually accelerate the harvest and somehow export even more wood out of the province of British Columbia.

First of all, I want to say to those that don't understand, if you're exporting logs…. By the way, they're not just taking low-grade stuff. They're taking higher-grade timber. They're buying our low-grade lumber in massive quantities, but they want the logs that they can make something more valuable out of. But that will ultimately…. Every time you ramp up log exports, if you think about it, you're then supplying the raw material — the feedstock, if you like — to Chinese mills to do what? Do they think they're not competing in our market, in the market that we're going to need by supplying…?

You know, we have these rules that have…. I understand the government is having some kind of a review. I hope that…. There's one of the hopes. Jack Layton talked about how we need to have hope. I have hope that the minister will be listening to the pleas of British Columbians and listening to those who know that losing jobs and not taking real action to defend forest communities in British Columbia, to promote value-added action and save jobs here in British Columbia….

Certainly, one of the ways to do that is to look at things like…. The fee in lieu of manufacturing is clearly not right. If it was the right fee in lieu of manufacturing, it would have stopped log exports. But clearly it's not much of a detriment if in the last few years alone we've gone from almost no mills on the coast of China to now 80 or more mills. I don't know what their latest number is, but last I heard it was 80 mills and growing on the coast of China, ultimately to use the raw materials — our raw logs. I like to think of them as B.C. jobs, because that's what