2010 Legislative Session: Second 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, May 18, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Living wage policy

D. Black

B.C. Association of Health-Care Auxiliaries

N. Letnick

North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association

M. Sather

Community fundraising in Kamloops

T. Lake

Student action on pesticides

D. Thorne

Cultural and heritage sites and events in Richmond

R. Howard

Oral Questions

Infection control at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Infection control and cleaning in hospitals

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Routley

Kaslo primary health care clinic

M. Mungall

Hon. K. Falcon

Loan program and sales tax exemption for leaky-condo repairs

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

School jazz band program on Sunshine Coast

N. Simons

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Registry of asbestos exposure risks

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. Coell

Correctional facilities in Okanagan area

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Offshore oil drilling on B.C. coast

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service Providers Protection Act

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

E. Foster

Hon. P. Bell

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

R. Fleming

D. Donaldson

K. Corrigan

Estimates: Management of public funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

Hon. C. Hansen

[ 5471 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I'm pleased to introduce and to welcome two fine British Columbians, Mr. Glen Ross and Mr. Joe Bobdanich, and their esteemed Italian guests, Dr. Sabino Basso and Dr. Joe Cerino of the Fedele and Figli SRL. They're makers of one of the world's finest olive oils, and they are here to explore business opportunities in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, they had lunch hosted by you. Also attending were the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I'm pleased to report to you that everyone was extremely well-behaved during the luncheon. I especially congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure who, I understand, in the past has been somewhat recalcitrant, but I can report that her behaviour today was quite exemplary.

I would ask the House to please make them all feel most welcome, including our own members.

R. Chouhan: I have two sets of introductions. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Antonia Beck, the executive director of South Burnaby Neighbourhood House. Antonia is a leader in our community. She has done a wonderful job helping people.

[1335]

She has some family members with her today. Her cousins from Italy are with her as well. I hope I'm pronouncing correctly Antonella De Vattimo, Georgio Pontarrollo and Marica Pontarrollo. I'll send the correct names to Hansard later on.

My second set of introductions. We have twelve members of the occupational health and safety committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour. It gives me great pleasure to introduce them: Jim Sayre, Larry Stoffman, Dusty Kelly, Sheila Moir, David Clarabut, Steve Milne, Pam Taylor, Ron Corbeil, Bob Ages, Dan Burrows, Jim Laliberte, Drew Garcia. Please join me to welcome them all.

S. Cadieux: I had the pleasure of joining the member for Surrey–White Rock for lunch this afternoon along with two of my constituents, Jerry and Karen Philipchuk from Surrey-Panorama, and their friends Sharon and Siri Jayatunge — which I apologize if I got wrong, because I didn't hear it pronounced — who are residents here in Victoria. We had a lovely lunch. Jerry and Karen purchased lunch with the former minister, current Gordie Hogg — sorry, I'm not allowed to say that.

Anyways, a lovely fundraiser for PACS Community Services, now Sources, and I would like to thank them very much for their support of the community organization.

H. Bloy: Today I would like to welcome to the Legislative Assembly the Second Street Community School, and up here we have the future that is going to lead British Columbia. I had the privilege of meeting them along with many of their parents and their teacher, Carlene Montgomery, earlier today. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like to have the House make welcome in the precinct today Roland Baumann, the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association from Vanderhoof; Judy Guichon, the vice-president from Merritt; and Kevin Boon, the general manager of the Cattlemen's Association from Kamloops. They had lunch with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the co-chair of the Ranching Task Force. We're having further discussions with them in terms of the Ranching Task Force later this afternoon.

I'd like both sides of the House to make them welcome today.

L. Reid: In the gallery today I have a lovely guest, Bree Macdonald. She works in the field of video relay, which is the

interpretation of phone calls between those who are hearing-impaired or deaf and the hearing population. She has worked as a classroom assistant. She continues to be an interpreter for the deaf. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

D. Hayer: We had an excellent event this afternoon to celebrate Asian Heritage Month. There were many performers from different backgrounds. My colleague is going to introduce some of the guests.

I will introduce guests from Shan-e Punjab Dance, Performing Arts and Heritage School. They include Navjit Bhangu, Melody Sidhu, Harkirn Bhela, Madison Bains, Janessa Sundher, Amy Sundher, Nicole Randhawa, Raveena Moor, Serena Rai, Angela Bamra and Jasleen Dhatt.

Two other performers, who were also working as OMNI TV reporters, were Amritpal Sekhon and Harman Dhillon, along with the many other guests that we had — including, from Vancouver Chinatown BIA Society, John Bal and Har Singh, who was a previous ADM here and who arranged for some of the performers to come here.

They performed one of the best performances in dance I have seen in Chinese music and Indian music and Punjab dance. They provided music that went back thousands of years up to current music.

[ 5472 ]

Would the House please make them very welcome for the excellent job they did today.

[1340]

R. Lee: We had a very successful celebration of Asian Heritage Month in the House today.

I would like to introduce some of the guests who came over to celebrate with us. Jason Chen of Canada Association of Heyuan Economic and Cultural Communication; John Lo, president of Hainan Business Association of Canada; and, of course, Don Montgomery, executive director of Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society.

We also have performers from the Canadian Pluralistic Cultural Exchange Association. The group is called Allure Dance Studio, led by Jack Li. The performers are Jean Ding, Mara Zhang, Helen Zou and Haisie Li. So would the House please join me to welcome them.

Also, I would like to mention two grade 9 students from Reynolds Secondary School. They displayed their project. The project is called "Chinese Immigration to Canada," by two grade 9 students, Alysha Haas and also Colleen Ten Have.

Thank you to those performers and the guests who attended today's event. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LIVING WAGE POLICY

D. Black: Last month the city council in my community of New Westminster made history by becoming the first municipal government in Canada to enact a living wage policy. The council unanimously passed a resolution that commits the city to establishing a living wage policy that is tied to an hourly rate, which will be set each year. The policy will apply to both full- and part-time employees, regardless of the value of the contract or the number of employees. It will apply to employees who perform work on city premises or properties.

A living wage has been defined as enough to keep a family of two working adults and two children above the poverty line. For New Westminster, that works out to $16.74 an hour. This is more than twice the amount of B.C.'s minimum wage of $8 an hour, now the lowest in Canada.

While the living wage policy has been successfully spreading throughout the United States, here in Canada the issue is just beginning to make itself felt. I congratulate the members of New Westminster city council and the citizens in my community who worked together to bring about this historic victory for working families. This is another first for western Canada's first city.

B.C. ASSOCIATION

OF HEALTH-Care AUXILIARIES

N. Letnick: Today I rise to speak about and recognize the positive contributions made by the British Columbia Association of Health-Care Auxiliaries. Their goal is to provide better health care to every British Columbian through volunteering their time and helping raise funds that are channelled back into B.C.'s health authorities to provide continued care for patients.

Funds are raised through a variety of different means, such as hospital gift shops, coffee bars, thrift shops, raffles, catering, bake sales, fashion shows and book sales. These funds help health authorities purchase equipment that might not otherwise be provided for by hospitals and care facilities. In the year 2009 alone the auxiliaries in B.C. donated over $9 million to health care facilities to which they are attached, and since their creation, the B.C. Association of Health-Care Auxiliaries have raised an astonishing $169 million.

Locally in my area over the past few years the government has partnered with local regional district hospital boards to announce and invest over $1 billion in expansion to local hospitals. These much-needed and appreciated enhancements to medical service for people living in the Interior are made easier with the fundraising and volunteer efforts of our local hospital auxiliaries.

In addition to dollars, another important donation that cannot be overlooked is the donation of one's time. The total number of hours donated by 86 B.C. auxiliaries has reached over 1.3 million hours. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank the B.C. Association of Health-Care Auxiliaries and its members who so generously offer time, care and support to the citizens of every riding in every corner of British Columbia.

NORTH FRASER

THERAPEUTIC RIDING ASSOCIATION

M. Sather: Today I rise in the House to make special mention of a group whose programs have been of great service to my constituents and to many individuals across the Lower Mainland.

[1345]

The North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association offers a selection of therapeutic riding courses in the Lower Mainland for individuals with mental and physical disabilities.

The organization has operated in Maple Ridge for 30 years, and throughout that time the services they provide have benefited many, allowing them to develop balance, coordination and strength while assisting their social integration and helping their confidence and self-esteem.

The program's ability to help participants reach their full potential is demonstrated by the example of

[ 5473 ]

Jennifer McKenzie, an equestrian Paralympian who figured prominently in the Paralympic ceremony in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Many others have been helped by the therapeutic riding association. For example, Jack Hajum, a child who is visually impaired and has been diagnosed with high-functioning autism. According to his father, Dean, Jack has benefited from greater balance, gross and fine motor skills, increased strength and overall improved enjoyment of life. His schoolmates and everyone who learns he rides a horse find it fascinating and impressive that he's doing something that many people only dream of.

From developing Paralympians to helping others feel great about themselves by overcoming their challenges, the North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association has demonstrated a tremendous capacity to improve the lives of participants.

Despite the great work that the riding association has done, their future is in doubt. Recent changes to gaming funding have resulted in the loss of $40,000 to the association, which puts their programs at risk.

I remain hopeful that the North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association will survive the challenges they face, because the services they provide are a lifeline to their clients, and it would be a shame to see them lost.

COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING

IN KAMLOOPS

T. Lake: Members of this House are well aware that as Canada's tournament capital, the city of Kamloops is very competitive. This good-natured competitiveness applies not only to sports but to fundraising challenges.

One of the best-known of these is the annual SPCA City Challenge, which has become one of the largest fundraisers for the organization that speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves. In past years we've challenged the cities of Kelowna and Prince George, and in all but one instance that I can recall, Kamloops has come out on top. The Little Apple did squeak out a win in my last year as mayor of the 'loops, but we are still awaiting an auditor's report on that result.

This year B.C.'s northern gateway is challenging Kamloops throughout the month of May, and the latest figures show Kamloops ahead at $16,000, compared to $7,200 for PG, but I understand my colleagues from Prince George have yet to write a cheque, so I know that gap will soon close. The Kamloops SPCA kicked off the drive with a barbecue and silent auction. A car wash, garage sale and open house will follow in the coming weeks.

The SPCA City Challenge comes on the heels of another very successful community fundraising event held earlier this month, when 2,200 runners and walkers took

part in the 13th annual Boogie the Bridge, which raised over $100,000 for the ASK Wellness organization.

Joe Berry and her dedicated team continually encourage Kamloopsians to keep moving to improve their physical and mental well-being and at the same time support very deserving local community groups. For the size of our city, the Boogie the Bridge is comparable to the Vancouver Sun Run. Since 1998 when only 60 people took up the challenge, over 2,200 people raced this year.

I would like to congratulate organizers of these two community events and the thousands of people in the Kamloops region who support them.

STUDENT ACTION ON PESTICIDES

D. Thorne: I think politicians should take note. Parkland Elementary School students, which happens to be the alma mater of my own children, are calling for action to see cosmetic pesticides banned in Coquitlam and across B.C. and Canada.

Lori Sherle's grade 4 class is determined to teach civic, provincial and federal governments about eco-friendly options to pesticide pollution. They've rolled up their sleeves and created all-natural slug bait and weed killer, all with donated recycled materials.

All 30 students — including Anthony, Kylee, Shelby and Melanie — have been learning about the environment while they work on changing government policies on pesticides.

This is what the students have been saying — and in our own local newspapers: "We don't want animals to die. If birds eat dead insects on the grass, they will die too, because pesticides are in the bugs. The chain keeps going, and the food chain gets affected, so we are going to try to create change in our whole country."

[1350]

That wasn't enough for this proactive group. They wanted to sow the seeds of change far and wide, with their hopes of growing greener governments. They invited a city councillor, an MLA and an MP to visit their classroom and presented each of us with a gardening gift: a box of organic slug bait and weedkiller made from grandma's secret recipes.

Included in my box are a personalized letter and a green pesticide kit for each of the following: the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Environment Minister and the Environment critic, and I will deliver them personally tomorrow. I would have brought them, but I knew I wasn't allowed to have props, Mr. Speaker.

I think they deserve a really big hand, grade 4 Parkland School. Mr. Speaker, out of the mouths of babes.

CULTURAL AND HERITAGE SITES

AND EVENTS IN RICHMOND

R. Howard: Earlier this month the city of Richmond opened its doors to the public for a special event called

[ 5474 ]

Doors Open Richmond. Over 40 cultural and heritage sites within the city offered people a chance to visit venues for free — venues such as the Richmond Cultural Centre, the art gallery, Minoru Chapel, Pathway Aboriginal Centre and the John Lecky boathouse and many others participated.

It is often very surprising when you discover all the great things that exist within your own community, and in this era of staycations, it is important to keep people interested in what's happening in their own city. We can't always go on an exotic vacation. We can, however, stay at home and discover something great within our own city. The work done by the city to bring out residents for this event was well-planned, and the weekend was a great success drawing over 16,000 visits.

Our community embodies the spirit of our citizens and reflects their good nature and hospitality. I was able to attend a number of attractions myself and was reminded of our proud past and encouraged about our future.

The Richmond Delta Heritage Fair took place this weekend, and it was great to see the younger generation come out and how aware it is that history exists in their community. It's even more interesting to learn and listen to them about what they think about our future.

We've had a very special year in Richmond so far, and it is great to see the pride of the people in our city. We are looking forward to a wonderful summer, and I'm certain we'll bring many people together and continue to build on the great hospitality of Richmond as we keep our doors open to all.

Let us please congratulate the hard-working staff and the legions of volunteers such as Ron Hyde, Clara Chow, Seema Aaron who give generously of their time and help make open doors such a success.

Oral Questions

INFECTION CONTROL AT

NANAIMO REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Nanaimo Regional General Hospital has lived through a virtual epidemic of infection outbreaks over the past two years, including two in the last six weeks involving C. difficile and norovirus. Research has demonstrated a link between the contracting out of housekeeping services and the rise of hospital infection rates.

This has certainly been the experience here in British Columbia and in Nanaimo in particular. Cleaning is a vital element of infection control, and only this government fails to grasp this reality.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority has put out a proposal call for housekeeping services. Right now, I think it's coming due in June. Will the minister take advantage of this period to return, to repatriate, housekeeping services in-house at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member is just totally wrong to make a false connection that the member ought to know is wrong if he's done even the most briefest of research.

The fact of the matter is the norovirus is actually acquired in the community and was brought to the hospital. That would be the first level of information the member should do.

Then the member talks about C. difficile. C. difficile is present in virtually every hospital around the world. If the member had done his homework, he would know, whether it was the New England Journal of Medicine , Archives of Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine , all of them are saying that this is an ongoing challenge for hospitals around the world because of the increased use of antibiotics which makes new strains more difficult to deal with.

For the member to try and suggest this is about housecleaning is just dead wrong.

[1355]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, British Columbia continues to distinguish itself as being the only jurisdiction in the world that denies the link between a clean hospital and infection control — the only jurisdiction in the world.

It is nonsense, the minister's position. He wants to talk about evidence. He knows that outbreaks of norovirus have doubled over the last few years. He knows that between 2006 and 2009, C. difficile outbreaks have doubled in the Vancouver Island Health Authority and that there's been a virtual…. There was an 11-month — the minister might not be aware of it; it happened before he was Health Minister, perhaps — outbreak of C. difficile last year.

It's the minister that is denying the evidence. The minister knows, or he should know, that best practices, such as surface sampling, are only used in the audit process in Vancouver Island once an outbreak has been confirmed.

Will the minister set aside…? I know it's hard for him. I know he wants to deny that a clean hospital has a link to infection control, but he is alone in this. Will he take advantage of the opportunity today and bring that housekeeping back in-house?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a fascinating line of questions from the NDP. Now, just put aside for a minute the fact that the Hospital Employees Union funds virtually all

[ 5475 ]

their election campaigns. Just put that aside for a moment. We are the first government…. In the 1990s they did not do any independent cleanliness audits ever. We are the first government that actually do independent cleanliness audits, and I think it might be interesting….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that seems to have excited a nerve. I'm not sure why.

If they look at the independent cleaning audits that were undertaken last year, they will find something interesting. Of the 19 facilities that did not meet the 85 percent benchmark, 12 of those were in-house. Seven were contracted out.

I imagine, if we follow that philosophy, we ought to get rid of all the in-house housekeeping and do it all contracted out, based on the evidence of the external auditing that's been done.

The fact of the matter is this. All hospitals deal with the challenge of C. difficile . It's in all the medical journals. It's there. I'd be happy to refer the member to the evidence, and the fact is our housekeeping staff do an exceptional job every day of the week.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

INFECTION CONTROL AND CLEANING

IN HOSPITALS

A. Dix: The minister can't help himself. He wants to support hospital workers, but then he starts his response to the question by attacking them. He just can't help himself.

The fact of the matter is….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations is talking now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: I mean, it is of course true, as the Vancouver Island Health Authority has said, that overcrowded hospitals also lead to the spread of infection. It's also true that the Vancouver Island Health Authority has acknowledged that that hospital in Nanaimo is overcrowded.

How do we deal with this? The evidence shows that it takes well-trained health care teams to do this. The evidence shows that you abandon schemes such as privatization. The evidence shows that you have assessments based on more than whether a hospital room appears clean.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, they don't want to hear this, but they're going to hear it.

Will the minister start following best practices in infection control, repatriate services and adopt microbiological standards in infection prevention?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, let's be clear about this. What the Health critic is doing is blaming C. difficile and outbreaks of norovirus that are coming from the community to the hospital…. He's blaming it on the very cleaners in the hospital. But let's also be clear about another thing. What he is saying is…. Actually, no, he's only blaming those that are not part of the union that supports the NDP, so let's be clear about the kind of health care workers that the NDP critic is prepared to support.

The fact of the matter is…. Look at what the independent cleanliness audits actually said last year. As I pointed out to the members opposite, this is another inconvenient NDP fact. Of the 19 facilities that did not meet the higher standard we put in place…. There was no standard under the NDP. Of the 19 facilities that didn't hit the 85 percent standard we put in place, 12 of them were in-house cleaning. Seven were contracted out.

I guess if we follow what that member is suggesting, then actually we should get rid of those in-house cleaning operations because they're failing to meet the benchmark that government has set. I'd be surprised to hear the member say that, but I'm looking forward to hearing that in the follow-up question.

D. Routley: The minister denies that cleanliness affects the outbreak of disease in hospitals. It's clear that standards have decreased throughout the province. He's proven that by the facts that he has given. He's also content to rely on visual checks to check the standards of cleanliness at the Nanaimo Regional Hospital. Surfaces are only tested after there's an outbreak.

It has been repeatedly recommended that to prevent outbreaks, microbiological tests become part of the routine tests for hospital cleanliness. Will the minister immediately overhaul how hospital cleanliness is monitored and reported?

[ 5476 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, it's a fascinating position from the member opposite, given that they had absolutely no monitoring in the 1990s. There was no independent auditing done of cleanliness standards. We actually brought in outside, independent monitoring of cleanliness standards.

As I just pointed out to the members opposite, surprisingly enough, of the 19 facilities that failed to meet the 85 percent benchmark, which is a very high standard we set in British Columbia, 12 of them were in-house cleaning facilities. That is the group that supports the NDP financially. I hope the NDP isn't suggesting that we now should contract out those services, too, because they fail to meet the standard. Is that what I'm hearing from the member?

You know, the fact of the matter is that we have brought in consistent independent auditing so we have a continual improvement process in place. It is wrong for those members to attack health care workers in the field that are dealing with the issues of norovirus outbreaks in the community brought to the hospital. They're doing a great job under very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The minister is dismissing the concerns of the residents of Nanaimo. Mr. Speaker, 88-year-old Ernie Little went into that hospital on March 17. He's struggling with serious health issues. He's a veteran of the liberation of Holland. His family is afraid he'll never leave that hospital alive. Routine is what closures have become in that hospital. Lockdown has become a routine event recently because of these outbreaks. It's clear that hospital cleanliness is key to controlling outbreaks of infectious disease.

This minister is in denial. The people of Nanaimo know the truth. They know that this minister won't reverse his disastrous contracting-out policies that have led to this in Nanaimo. Why doesn't he do the right thing and speak up for patients like Ernie Little in Nanaimo and make the changes that will keep those patients safe?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: The more appropriate question is: why doesn't the member do his homework so he would discover that, actually, these cases came from the community and were brought to the hospital? The hospital is dealing with the fact that the norovirus and C. difficile cases came from the community into the hospital. That is an inconvenient fact, but it is a fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: The other thing the member might want to look into is the fact that we actually set up a patient safety quality office headed by Dr. Doug Cochrane. Dr. Doug Cochrane has actually been taking best practices and ensuring that best practices and cleaning standards are applied right across the system, right across British Columbia. That never existed, again, under ten years of the NDP, nor did the independent auditing.

The fact is that it is really wrong and irresponsible for them to try and blame health care workers for viruses that were brought from the community to the hospital. They are actually doing an exceptional job in dealing with outbreaks from the community brought to the hospital.

KASLO PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CLINIC

M. Mungall: For years, Kaslo primary health centre has been the model of community care. Rather than supporting this strong interdisciplinary team, the B.C. Liberal government's local health authorities are waging what the local doctors and nurses describe as a war of attrition against the clinic.

The Minister of Health says primary care is key to a quality health care system and to containing costs. Will he, on those grounds, instruct his health authority to stop dismantling this model clinic that north Kootenay Lake communities rely on?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said many times in this House, the fact of the matter is that even with a 15 percent increase in health care funding over the next three years, it does not mean that we continue to do everything exactly as the status quo. I know it's hard for the NDP to believe that even with 15 percent increases, there are still demands on the health care system. But there are.

So the real question is: should we be asking the health authorities to try and do more in delivering those services as efficiently and effectively as they can? Yes, we believe we actually owe it to the public and the taxpayer to do those when an environment of 15 percent health care increases is still a challenge.

Now, the NDP position is: "Do not change anything. We must not ever look at different ways of doing things. We must always do them exactly the same and just pour more money into the system." That is not our approach. That is the approach of the NDP, and we won't be following that approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I know that Kaslo is just a dot on the map for the minister, but let me tell you this issue is very important to people who live in that community. Things do change in the health care system. Actually,

[ 5477 ]

the changes that were first implemented to create the primary health care centre happened in 2002 under this government, and now they're pulling back.

Public health nursing is being cut from full-time to part-time, home care nursing is being slashed in half, and primary care nursing is also being reduced to a half-time position. "Primary care is an ounce of prevention," says the minister, but actions — these cuts — speak louder than words.

Will this minister back up what he says with action and protect this clinic's ability to deliver primary care in the Kootenays?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm a little surprised at the nature of the question. If it's so important to the member, I'm surprised the member hasn't contacted me, hasn't stopped by the office and has sent nothing over to suggest that this is an issue.

Interjections.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: It is a bit of a surprise. Generally speaking, if you have a real concern about an issue in an area like Kaslo, you would present that to the minister's office. I've certainly had other members of the opposition that have problems bring them forward, and we try and deal with it.

You know, I pride myself on trying to make sure I am up to speed on every aspect of a $15 billion portfolio. But it would be helpful if the member would send some information over, identify the issue she's concerned about, and we'd of course be happy to try and help the member deal with that issue.

LOAN PROGRAM AND SALES TAX

EXEMPTION FOR LEAKY-CONDO REPAIRS

S. Simpson: In 2008 McClanaghan and Associates conducted an assessment of the Homeowner Protection Office leaky-condo program. They determined that over 72,000 condominiums in B.C. were leaky and that as of 2012 between 14,000 and 24,000 would still need to be repaired.

We know the government cancelled the loan program in July 2009, leaving these homeowners with no meaningful government support. But now we know that by implementing the HST and cancelling the PST rebate on repairs, effective June 30, the government is removing the only other support available to them. This assessed PST rebate averaged $688 in 2009.

My question to the minister is: why have the B.C. Liberals now completely turned their back on the thousands of people who need to repair their homes?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was last July that we actually announced we would be doing…. Both the homeowner protection loan program would sunset, and also at the same time, the PST program would sunset.

Nothing to do with the HST, Member. It's got to do with the fact that we looked at the program. We did our analysis. We knew that we were well over what was predicted it was going to be, well over $700 million in homeowner repairs.

We knew that during the given time period, looking at the time period where new building envelopes were put into place in British Columbia…. The time period that people should have identified their issues and been within the construction loan program had long gone past the date that everybody predicted, including the previous government.

So we decided to move on with that, and it had nothing to do with the HST, Member. It's a fact of the matter that the PST program is sunsetting the same as the HPO program was, which we debated last fall. We've answered in other question periods. We've done it twice in estimates, and the member is well aware of it. We're not about to change the position.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: It was bad policy. The minister was wrong last fall, and he's still wrong today.

The PST disappears when the HST comes into force. When it disappears, there is no more PST to rebate, and the minister knows that. As of September 2007, 32,000 homes were repaired. They received about $21 million in PST rebates. That's gone now. We estimate that the people who are still waiting to repair their homes are going to lose somewhere between $10 million and $17 million because this government is implementing the HST and cancelling this rebate.

These are people who have no choice but to repair their homes. These repairs often cost in the range of $70,000-plus to do, and now what little support they had left from this government is gone because of the policies of this government around the HST. How can this government justify killing this modest bit of support for the thousands of people who face leaky condos and instead giving them the HST that they hate?

Hon. R. Coleman: Anybody that has their application processed or in by 4:30 on June 30 will still get their PST rate on leaky condos.

The irony of it is this. This is the opposition that wanted to keep the PST and charge everybody in B.C. 19 percent in provincial sales tax and harmonized sales tax, because they're opposed to it.

Interjections.

[ 5478 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: There they go, the great….

[1415]

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I just heard you want to keep the PST and have the HST on July 1. That's what I heard. I saw you all vote against getting rid of the 7 percent sales tax, and now you're whining about the fact that we're reducing taxation to British Columbians.

I know one thing. You, your own government, said it was a ten-year program. It went 12. You said $250 million. It went to $750 million. It helped the people with leaky condos. We changed the code so we could deal with building envelope failure. We've made the adjustments to the building code in British Columbia, and because you want to keep the PST and have a 19 percent tax, you go and explain that to your constituents, hon. Member.

SCHOOL JAZZ BAND PROGRAM

ON SUNSHINE COAST

N. Simons: Right now the Elphinstone Jazz Band is flying over the Prairies on their way to Ottawa to perform in a music festival that showcases some of Canada's best and most dedicated young music students. However, because of budget shortfalls caused by this government, the school district is cancelling their jazz program next year. Will the minister take this opportunity to explain to students in Gibsons why the school district can't afford to run this highly prized band program?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question, to the member opposite. As the member is well aware, our government has placed a priority on education at a time when governments around North America are struggling to meet budgets because of the economic downturn. We've increased education funding — this year, an additional $112 million for education — and we've done this at a time of great economic challenge.

REGISTRY OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE RISKS

R. Chouhan: Asbestos is linked to lung diseases, including cancer, and has killed untold thousands of Canadian workers. Workers are far too often exposed to asbestos in building renovations and demolitions. Without knowing where the asbestos is hiding, these workers have no chance to take proper precautions.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour commit today to create a registry of locations, facilities and buildings where asbestos is present so workers aren't walking blindly into dangerous situations?

Hon. M. Coell: I met with the B.C. Fed this morning. They discussed that issue with me. I've taken it under advisement and will give it consideration.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

IN OKANAGAN AREA

M. Farnworth: Two years ago and six Solicitors General ago, the government cancelled a press conference to announce a new corrections facility in the Central Okanagan, a corrections facility that was to help deal with the increasing problems and challenges that corrections officers face in this province where they've seen increasing violence and the ratio in facilities of prisoners to corrections officers has increased significantly. In the case of Kamloops, the ratio is now 40 prisoners to one corrections officer.

Can the Solicitor General tell us when the Central Okanagan can expect to see a new corrections facility?

Hon. M. de Jong: I reject the member's assertion. You're not allowed to count me twice. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the issue is a serious one and relates to not just the housing of prisoners but the fact that we are taking other steps, both on the investigative side and on the prosecutorial side, to aggressively pursue those who commit the most serious of crimes. The demand on the system is increasing.

That's why we were anxious and have proceeded with the new facility that is under construction in Surrey, which will provide an outlet for the increased capacity that we need. We are, of course, continuing to explore and move ahead with the provision of additional facilities elsewhere in the province.

OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING ON B.C. COAST

R. Fleming: In the weeks following the catastrophic Gulf oil spill at BP's offshore drilling site, all of the governors and all of the senators of every Pacific Northwest state who share our coastline have called for a permanent ban on offshore exploration and drilling.

The Premier is in China this week. When he was there last in 2006, he told a business audience that the B.C. Liberals would open up our coast to drilling within a few years.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. What is the Premier telling oil and gas firms on this trade visit when he's in China? Is he saying: "Come to British Columbia, the best place on earth to open up drilling in the world"?

[ 5479 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think it's fair to say that everyone is still gravely concerned with what's going on in the Gulf, and we're all, I think, very hopeful that the remedy can be sought and the cleanup can begin. Our message has not changed, nor has the reality that there's a moratorium off the coast of British Columbia.

The federal government, I know, is watching closely what's taking place in the Gulf as well. We have no intention, unless something can be done…. Whether you're on land or on the water, if it can't be done environmentally sound and scientifically safe, it won't happen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister just finished by giving assurances that were given to the people of Louisiana, ones that can't be given with this industry. The public in British Columbia overwhelmingly reject the environmental risk that this Premier and the B.C. Liberals lobby Ottawa to take. British Columbians support continuing the moratorium that every government of every political stripe in B.C.'s history has maintained.

Will the Minister of Environment stand in this House today and promise British Columbians that this government will cease lobbying the federal government to lift the moratorium on coastal oil drilling off the coast of B.C.?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I can't be much clearer than what I said earlier. We said, for the people that want to listen…. It's interesting. "We should look at the offshore ten or 20 years from now when supplies are absolutely critical" — the Energy critic from the NDP. Interesting. "The moratorium ought to be lifted" — former NDP Premier Dan Miller. It's interesting.

What we have said is that when we look at resource extraction in this province — whether it be the issue we're talking about here today, whether it be offshore, whether it be onshore natural gas drilling, whether it be the extraction of our forests — whatever takes place in this province will only be done if it can be done properly in a sound scientific manner, one that respects the environment. If that can't happen, Member, it won't happen in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Finance — and, in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 21.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service

Providers Protection Act

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 21 be read a second time now.

The Forestry Service Providers Protection Act repeals the antiquated Woodworker Lien Act and brings lien legislation for logging contractors into the 21st century. This piece of legislation establishes two individual levels of protection for forest workers or for forest service providers.

The first element is a lien that takes place as long as the primary licensee remains solvent, and it operates much in the same way that normal lien legislation would operate. In fact, it is replicated from other lien legislation. If a company or licensee becomes insolvent, then you move from the regular lien legislation into a form of insurance or a trust that allows or ensures that the contractor will be paid for their services.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This has been a very complex issue involving deep consultation with logging service providers as well as licensees, and we spent a significant amount of time over the last year and a half developing this legislation.

This legislation came as a result of various insolvencies starting out, perhaps, with Skeena Cellulose and then moving forward to the more recent Pope and Talbot insolvency. We need to ensure that our logging contractors can be provided with a reasonable level of security and finance their businesses in an orderly way.

The challenge comes in ensuring that we're not negatively impacting licensees' availability of credit by displacing the order that various credit providers are involved in, in an insolvency situation, secured versus unsecured creditors. We think we've found a good balance between the lien legislation with contractors or with licensees who are not in protection and then moving to a trust or an insurance model after that point in time.

As I said, Bill 21 has two key parts. The first operates in the identical way to normal liens, allows a contractor to utilize the services of a sheriff should a licensee not fulfil their payment obligations to the contractor, and then the insolvency model that we've talked about.

This is, by the nature of the legislation, as I said, very complex and I'm sure will involve a significant amount of

[ 5480 ]

time during the committee stage of this bill where I think we'll be able to probe all of the individual elements.

As I said, from the perspective of someone who worked as a logger in the 1990s, I certainly understand the need to be able to have a secure business and to ensure that you're paid for the services you provide. That was not the case prior to this legislation coming forward. There has been a gap that was identified by the truck loggers as well as some of the interior logging associations. We're pleased with this piece of legislation, to be able to fill that hole and ensure that they are paid.

As I said, we went through a significant amount of consultation. This has the support of all the logging associations, including the Truck Loggers Association, the Central Interior Logging Association, the Interior Logging Association and the North West Loggers Association, as well as the support of the Council of Forest Industries and the Coast Forest Products Association along with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association.

I will look forward to the debate in the committee stage of this bill, and I'm sure that members will have comments at second reading stage as well.

N. Macdonald: Always a pleasure to stand. Bill 21 is, as the minister has alluded to, a fairly complex bill and one that obviously begs a lot of questions in terms of how it's going to work.

I think one of the ironies with Bill 21 is that the need certainly was far greater when the changes to the Woodworker Lien Act were first proposed years ago. Since late 2007 some longstanding contracting companies have disappeared. I think many will have heard of companies such as Adama Enterprises, LeRoy Trucking, Hayes Forest Services, Madill Equipment and Munns.

Some of these had been in operation for over 90 years and were caught up in, I think, one of the most unprecedented collapses of the forest industry. Well, it was certainly the most unprecedented collapse of a forest industry that we've seen in British Columbia.

[1430]

Many contractors close to where I live were also caught up in the collapse of Pope and Talbot, where work had been done. Logs were there, but others had priority over those contractors. So it's certainly an issue that many people feel very deeply concerned about.

In talking to contractors about this legislation…. I'll just highlight for the minister some of the things that we'll be exploring as we go through the detail, because the key to this will be in the detail and how it's actually going to work for people on the ground.

We are hearing some concerns from contractors about the lien provisions. Obviously, they are not particularly willing to speak publicly, but there are complications that they say will make this bill largely ineffective in terms of the lien protection. I think the minister has alluded to the complication for trying to deal with this issue. There are multiple interests dealing with this issue, and very clearly, the major licensees obviously had concerns about changes to the lien provisions.

I think, also, you will have workers groups that will have concerns about changes to the lien provisions, and I presume that when the minister was consulting with groups, he would have consulted with the major licensees. He's alluded to the very many organizations that presumably there was full consultation with, and I presume that he would have included, as well, groups like the Steelworkers, who have used the existing legislation in the past to deal with some of their issues.

Those concerns, I think, go a long way to explaining why this bill has taken so long to come to the House. It is over a year and a half since the promise was made, and the promise was made at a time when there was tremendous need. So we are going to be exploring, in third reading, very specifically how the lien provisions are going to work, and then from there we'll make a judgment as to whether the minister has found the right balance in terms of looking after the various concerns that are out there and the various parties and interests that want this legislation to work effectively.

This is what some of the contractors have said. If they complain about the lien provisions, it makes it more complicated as they participate in discussions about how the forestry service providers compensation fund is going to work.

Again, one of the concerns you have with a piece of legislation like this is that there is a fund, there is perhaps a hint of what the fund may look like, but it is very difficult, in looking at the legislation or from the minister's comments, to really get a clear sense of how this fund is going to work. Because it's a piece of legislation that really leaves it for a later time to come up with those provisions, it's clear that there's still a great deal of work to be done in actually putting together the framework for that fund.

Having said that, the expectation that I would have and that the public would have is that in bringing in the piece of legislation, the minister must be very close to coming up with the key framework for how the fund would work. There would be, of course, questions that we would have during the third reading debate where, for the public's information, we have an opportunity to ask the minister with staff specific questions, and we're really not restrained in terms of the amount of time.

It is often the most productive period of the law-making process, where we get, hopefully, clear answers on what is being proposed with what the minister has quite correctly characterized as a complex and challenging piece of legislation to put together.

[1435]

With this fund all, really, in regulation, there is a problem with that. We will have questions about the authority that regulates the fund. That invites questions.

[ 5481 ]

We will have them. There is the source of the funds. We will, of course, want to know in detail what the government is proposing in terms of providing money to fill this fund.

I think there's also another issue that we will need to address, and we will find the sections to do that. The minister and I attended, as I'm sure the ministers will normally attend, the meeting of silviculture contractors. He will have heard the same concerns that I have from the contractor community. They will quite correctly ask how this piece of legislation addresses the concerns that they have.

These silviculture contractors, of course, are those that run nurseries. They do the technical preparatory work for cutblocks and for silviculture work. They are the ones who go out and replant our forests. They do the spacing and thinning. That's a community that has likewise identified concerns about being left in a bankruptcy with no capacity to get money that is owed to them.

I think it's worthwhile. I mean, this is an attempt to deal with what we know takes place when there is the collapse of a business. There is a whole ripple effect, because of course, the business is a series of contractual obligations that you have. So when a business goes down, as Pope and Talbot did…. There are multitudes of businesses that have operated successfully but will find themselves exposed in a way that certainly seems unfair and definitely is not in the public interest to allow to happen.

We're going to be looking and just trying to understand whether within the legislation there are provisions for silviculture contractors. If there aren't, then we will be asking the minister to explain what the rationale for not including them is. We'll also be talking about perhaps some future ideas that the minister or the government has to deal with that particular issue.

We're also going to have questions about how the changes are going to affect steelworkers and other unionized workers who have expressed concern that the existing Woodworker Lien Act has been useful as a tool to protect some workers rights. We'll be questioning the minister and looking for an explanation on whether that concern is something that has been addressed with this legislation or is something that the minister has not considered in terms of what he's brought forward in this legislation.

The act comes to address — as I just come to the end of my comments here — the unparalleled collapse of our forest industry. Since the B.C. Liberals took over in 2001, we've lost 30,000 jobs and 71 mills. That has been a very difficult period for a tremendous number of rural communities. The contractors are just one group that has been impacted.

I think that for those of us that come from rural communities, that know individuals who have been caught in one of these bankruptcies, there's certainly a hope that it will address their issues. But as I say, there are many other friends and neighbours that we have…. We are going to be testing this legislation to make sure that it addresses those concerns as well.

With that, we will really be able most effectively to judge the quality of the bill in the third reading, and I think that we will get to that fairly quickly, I would assume in the next day or two. That's a process I look forward to.

[1440]

I know my colleague has comments, and then I think after that, unless there are members from the government side that have comments, we'll be fairly quickly moving on to third reading and a few other forestry bills.

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

B. Routley: I definitely have some very serious concerns about what's going on here as this government lurches from one change to another in amending the Forest Act, cobbling together all these bits and pieces from almost out of thin air.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This act even seems to go against what the Premier of the province suggested was going to happen as recently as 2009, when the Premier spoke at the TLA.

"We think it's important when people do work that they actually have an opportunity to be paid for it. This is something that we've also talked about significantly over the past, so I can tell you that the minister will be introducing legislation" — and here are the key words that I want to focus on — "to strengthen the Woodworker Lien Act to make sure that contractors have the right to freeze logs they've harvested in the event they are not paid for the services that they have already rendered and have been rendered by the contractor to the licensee."

Now, here's the problem with that. The Woodworker Lien Act was established way back in the 1900s. There was a lot of piecework that happened back in those days. Individual workers were paid for the pieces of work that they did, and the workers were able to put a lien against the work that they'd done.

For example, if the faller had done the falling and wasn't paid for the work, there was the ability under the Woodworker Lien Act to put a lien on that timber in order to make sure he was paid and, if necessary, go to the courts and deal with it in that way.

While we're talking about what the Premier commented on to the truck loggers, he was suggesting that it was going to be strengthening the Woodworker Lien Act. What this act actually does…. It starts off in the explanatory notes saying that it repeals the Woodworker Lien Act.

I need to add that in the past this act has been relied on successfully by a number of workers. While it's admirable that the government is concerned about contractors…. I, too, saw a number of contractors getting shafted by various licensees over a period of time.

[ 5482 ]

I think it is important that there be some provisions to help them. But I would add: what about the workers, the thousands of workers?

I saw the workers myself that worked for Munns and Leroy and Hayes. I actually represented those workers that worked for those contractors at that time when they were going bankrupt, and they got shafted out of their wages and their benefits. They got shafted. At the end of the day they didn't get their wages. They didn't get their vacation pay. They didn't get all of their benefits. They didn't get their pension plan paid for.

They left liability all over the place to all kinds of small businesses, including pension plans. So I find it absolutely unacceptable that this would cut out the very people that were originally intended to be protected under the Woodworker Lien Act, and that was woodworkers — not just contractors, all of the woodworkers. It is unacceptable that we're cutting the very people that do all of the work.

Sure, there's a handful of contractors, like Ted Leroy himself. He was around for a long time. It is brutal what happened to a guy like that at the end of the day, but you know, he fell on a sword of his own making.

You have a contractor that goes to work, and he buys all of this equipment based on a promise from a major, like TimberWest, that they're going to get to log all this timber. I happen to know that over 300,000 or 400,000 cubic metres of wood in the Johnstone Strait…. Imagine this. A contractor's gone and leased the equipment, maybe even bought a bunch of equipment, and at the end of the day, they just get a phone call: "We don't need the wood. Don't go and log at all in the Johnstone Strait."

[1445]

Imagine yourself, hon. Speaker, or any of the other members here, if you were a contractor, and you had gone out on the promise of all this timber to go out and cut, and you had gone out and leased all of this equipment or bought equipment based on some hocus-pocus deal that they got, that said that they were going to be given this timber.

Yeah, everything works out fine as long as the market is good, but as soon as the market collapsed, they're just abandoned by the side of the road like yesterday's news by a lot of these big companies, who just say: "Oh well. Those are the breaks." They're sitting there, stuck with all this capital equipment. That's what's happened.

In the context of this act, people need to understand why we're dealing with this act. We had all kinds of truck loggers come forward and say: "We're getting shafted." And they are, but there are a whole bunch of other things behind this.

There are the workers who do the falling and the bucking. They work on the yarding and loading — all of the truck drivers. Why shouldn't they be left in the rearview mirror? Why would we have

an act that just takes care of a handful of contractors? Well, good for them. We're taking care of contractors, but what about the suppliers?

If you're some guy that's got a bit of wire rope and you're making cable for a contractor, how do you think those people are going to feel? Some small business in Port Alberni or Ucluelet or somewhere making wire rope so they can supply the big contractors, and at the end of the day they get shafted. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've gone through the list of contractor after contractor that's been supplied by all of these small businesses, in communities all over British Columbia.

This bill is contemplating making a public fund. That's what I'm concerned about. Again, I haven't heard the details, but boy, if what I'm hearing is at all true — that we're thinking about using public dollars to hand off to a handful of contractors and that we're going to leave everybody else behind — boy, there is something wrong with that. We're taking the wrong medicine. It's the wrong act.

Again, was there consultation? I don't believe so. I talked to some folks, and they told me that they hadn't heard a thing about all of this, and they certainly didn't know that they were going to be cut out of the piece. Has the minister looked at all of the previous cases, the case law behind this? I'd be real interested in that, because there are all kinds of situations where people have put a lien.

I'm aware of a case where some workers put a lien against a boom and said: "We did the work. We felled it. We hauled it. We got it in the water, and now somebody wants to take that wood. Some big company wants to go and run it through their mill without paying up." That money has to flow back to the workers.

Now, if there were some words in here that gave comfort that the contractors are actually going to pay all of the workers who I've seen left out in the cold time and time again…. Again, you know what I'm concerned about? This is another one of these things that could end up with unintended consequences. We could end up with a handful of contractors.

Again, you think about Leroy. That's the one that loaded up the equipment and ended up on some whale-scratching beach, dumping all of that equipment in the ocean, and there's some big lawsuit against them.

I don't know whether the money from this would go to pay off some of the lawsuits, exactly how that would work. If that was public money, how do you think the public would feel today if you played the tape back, if we had this legislation and some kind of pot full of money out of the public purse was going to go to some contractor in circumstances like that? Boy, I'll tell you, I think there would be a lot of egg on some people's faces about that one.

So this needs to be thought through carefully. I know we're going to have the opportunity to go through the

[ 5483 ]

questions on this, and we'll be asking: what about the workers, the suppliers, all of the community businesses?

[1450]

You look at Donald Hayes. I want to mention that one. Donald was around for a long time on the coast of British Columbia. In fact, I know this was a company that…. They were on the front page of a magazine, one of the best-run companies on the coast of British Columbia.

You know what happened? We got into helicopter logging, and helicopter logging was…. They were making out like bandits. They were getting paid really well for what they were doing. They went from one helicopter, those great big Sikorsky helicopters, and pretty soon they were buying another one. Then they got another one. They even got…. Right there, just outside of Duncan, we were working on jet engines for helicopters. It was something to see. You'd have to go down there.

I'll tell you, when this act that they're talking about applying to help pay for some of that…. What it was, was grandiose ideas. Somehow we were going to do helicopter logging forever, and they got to five helicopters or six. At the end of the day, when the markets downturned, here they are stuck with all of this iron and no work for it to do, and the bills have got to be paid. The bank is not interested in your excuses about why you've got all this iron and nothing to do with it.

So at the end of the day, they were forced into bankruptcy. It is sad. It was certainly heartbreaking for me at the time to see not only those companies that had been around for a long time on the coast, but all the workers that worked for them. That's what I'm talking about.

You know, it's great that the government on the other side there have bleeding hearts for the contractors and the TLA. They get really nice. They like to go down there and get a standing ovation once in a while from somebody for saying all these good things like we heard the Premier say about improving the Woodworker Lien Act, but apparently that's not what we're doing. We're going to tear it up and throw it out. To heck with the workers and their families, and to heck with the suppliers and the communities and the small businesses that are attached. That's just plain sad. It's unacceptable.

This act needs some really serious amendments to it, in my opinion. It needs a great deal of work, and I hope the government will listen and go back…. Even if they went back to the Premier's own words that said: "Let's take the Woodworker Lien Act and improve on it." You know, I'm all over that. Like, I'm really interested in talking about how we improve the Woodworker Lien Act. But if we're going to tear it up and destroy the rights of workers and their families and the suppliers and the communities, that is a really serious problem, and it is not on.

I'll have more to say about this, but as you can see, I get really excited. I went through all those bankruptcies, and it wasn't a pleasant thing. So there's a reason for me to get upset. I care about those workers and the community, and they've got to be taken care of.

E. Foster: I rise today to speak to the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act. I can assure the member that the people on this side of the House are extremely concerned about the workers. That's what this is all about.

I worked in the forest industry all my life. I've been a logging contractor. I've been an employee of contractors.

Speaking to the four different associations that represent the logging industry throughout the province of British Columbia, and that's where the consultation was done…. The industry people, the licensees, the representatives of the Truck Loggers Association, the Interior Logging Association have worked very hard with the ministry on this initiative. It's a two-part protection system, if you will. There's the lien act portion of it, and then for companies that become insolvent, there is, if you will, the insurance-type fund that will protect the contractors.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

To be concerned about the workers…. If the contractors don't get paid, the workers don't get paid. So this providers protection act does exactly that. If a company becomes insolvent or if a company chooses not to pay their contractors, those contractors can't pay their employees. I know that in my area some of the larger contractors would have hundreds of thousands of dollars on the books at any given time, and this will protect them.

[1455]

This will enable them to borrow money to extend their line of credit so that they can pay their suppliers and they can pay their employees. The member opposite was concerned about the employees. This will protect those employees, will make the money available for the contractors, their employers, to pay.

The other thing that I see as a benefit here…. As a small contractor, I shipped wood to the major licensees, and I also many times had the opportunity to ship to some of the smaller operations. Quite often they were specialty-type mills, and they were able to pay a little more for their logs. But in uncertain times you maybe weren't quite so optimistic about selling to some of these smaller fellows, so you didn't. With this act, especially the small logging contractors will be able to do business with some of the smaller manufacturing operations with the confidence that they're going to get paid.

I'm not going to take up any more time on this. As the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke suggested, the meat and potatoes, if you will, of this will be at the committee stage, and I know the minister is anxious to answer a lot of the questions that some of the members

[ 5484 ]

opposite have and to clarify, certainly for the public and people in the forest industry, how this is going to be of great benefit to contractors and employees alike.

I certainly support this. As a person who has made their living in the forest industry for the last 40 years or so, I applaud this. It's an opportunity for us to protect both the contractors and their employees into the future.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the opportunity to close debate. Listening to the member for Cowichan Valley, what total and utter nonsense. I am tempted to call division on second reading to see how the member will vote, because I'm relatively certain that the member will vote in favour, yet none of his comments would indicate to me in any way, shape or form that he is supporting this bill. So it will be interesting to actually see how the member opposite chooses to vote.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This act is something that has been very complex and very challenging. We are confident that we have the broad support in the harvesting sector. It is targeted specifically at that sector. Certainly, I'm looking forward to the comments in the committee stage of this debate.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Forestry Service Providers Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 7 — forests and range statutes

amendment act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

section 1.

N. Macdonald:

Section 1 deals with changes to language. For instance,

section 1(

a) says, "by adding 'that' before 'portions' and by striking out 'attributable'…" and so on. Just for the public's information, these changes, while minor and often dealing with just one word or two, can have a dramatic effect.

I'll just quickly give an example of a change in an education bill where "and" was changed to "or," and it meant an incredible difference to how special needs were dealt with. When we're looking at these bills, even though it's just a change of one or two words, the impact can be really profound or it can be just a minor change. Part of what we will be doing here is just trying to understand — dramatic or a minor change?

Maybe the first question would be with

section 1. It's essentially changing the definition of "allowable annual cut" by changing the wording from "timber and terrain" to "timber or terrain." Maybe the first question to the minister is an explanation of the need for the section. What is the problem it's intended to address?

Hon. P. Bell: The amendment to this

section is intended to allow us to better define areas that we wish to partition, specifically around pine stands, and our ability to manage the long-term sustainable harvest, in the central interior portion of the province in particular, as a result of the potential impacts of the mountain pine beetle.

N. Macdonald: Part of the concern will be, of course, that the projections for many of these areas are that there's going to be a massive reduction in the amount of wood that's available for major licensees and others in the area. On the change to the language, the context for this is the concern that by changing the language, you might address a problem in the short term, but you might create a situation where in the long term you're not looking after the best interests of the forest.

The new language obviously allows greater flexibility in what is counted by, presumably, the chief forester. The question is: why would you want to do that? Why do you want that increased flexibility? What is the minister or the government looking for in creating greater flexibility?

Hon. P. Bell: This is really a housekeeping amendment. It does create additional flexibility to allow the chief forester to partition cuts in a way that ensures that the objective of the partition is met — as an example, partitioning specific pine stands and allocating a portion of the cut in any given TSA to those pine stands, but being able to do it in a way that might involve terrain parameters or specific species parameters. It is a tool that will create additional flexibility, but it's largely a housekeeping amendment in nature.

[ 5485 ]

N. Macdonald: I think it's pertinent to this section. The minister is talking about pine beetle areas. Has the ministry used partitioning on the coast or in other areas, or is this something that would first be in place in the pine beetle areas?

Hon. P. Bell: Partitioning has been used both on the coast and in the Interior. The coastal example was specific to the annual allowable cut partition around cedar, to ensure that licensees were harvesting the full profile and not just the cedar component of stands.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

N. Macdonald:

Section 2, then, is a change in terms that allows the cabinet to prescribe, by regulation, the maximum term of the innovative forest practices agreements. Now, these are not new, the innovative forest practices agreements, but they're not all that common.

[1505]

Maybe the minister can explain how many of these innovative forest practices agreements there are that are up and running, and give a rationale at the same time of the need for removing the 15-year cap.

Hon. P. Bell: There are seven IFPAs altogether around the province. Originally the term of the innovative forest practices agreement was 15 years, and that was actually placed in legislation. If we did not amend the legislation, the innovative forest practices agreements would expire at the conclusion of their 15-year term. That was a sunset clause that was put into the legislation about 15 years ago.

The innovative forest practices agreements have largely been believed to be a success. We've seen good reasons to continue to support those. There were a couple of options. One of those options would have been to put a new sunset date in place for the innovative forest practices agreements. You could have done one or all seven or a combination of those.

It was deemed that it made more sense to actually do that by regulation instead of doing it by legislation, but I think, generally speaking, the IFPAs have been a success. It was a good innovation, and we intend to see those continue on. That's why this amendment is in this piece in this act.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for the answer. Maybe just a bit more expansion. The minister said that there was consideration of setting another term and that it was felt it was better to go to an unlimited time instead of by regulation. But maybe just expand on that. What were some of the considerations, and what was the persuasive argument that led to the minister concluding that using regulation rather than a set period of time was the best way to go?

Hon. P. Bell: I just need to correct the record. I said there were seven IFPAs. There are actually eight IFPAs around the province: Williams Lake; 100 Mile House, which is a single IFPA; Kamloops; Fraser; Arrow; Merritt; Prince George; Morice and the Lakes, which is a single one in the Okanagan. Those are the eight locations of the IFPAs.

Again, the IFPAs largely have proven to be a success. We want to make sure that each of the individual TSAs in which those IFPAs are located — that we tailor the IFPA to meet the needs of that specific timber supply area. Some may look for a longer extension period; others may look for a shorter extension period, depending on the nature of the IFPA.

Rather than amending it by legislation and then having to re-amend it at some future day by legislation, I believed it made more sense to do this strictly by regulation and giving us the flexibility to do this.

This is not a significant amendment by the nature of it. IFPAs are a good tool and not something, in my view, that needs to be embedded in legislation. It can easily be handled in a regulatory measure.

N. Macdonald: Now, these terms are highly technical, especially to a layman. Just so that I understand the IFPAs, because as the minister said, they're not terribly common. How do they relate to the assessment of the annual allowable cuts? Are there different criteria that the chief forester would use in terms of looking at innovative forest practice agreements, in terms of: does it have any impact at all in establishing what a cut will be in a certain area?

[1510]

Hon. P. Bell: One of the points of difference between an IFPA and an area that is not being managed under an IFPA is that in an innovative forest practices agreement the AAC determination is done by the regional manager, not the chief forester — so another statutory decision–maker. It is done differently in that circumstance.

The companies, or licensees, that operate within the innovative forest practices agreement area work together to establish a forestry plan. That's then approved by the regional manager and implemented and delivered by the individual licensees in the area.

The goal of many of these plans is to try and find ways to more effectively manage the land base and achieve higher levels of annual allowable cut, but those determinations are made by the regional manager. That is a point of difference, because in a non-IFPA area it is the chief forester, not the regional manager, that determines the cut level.

I'll just remind the member opposite that, of course, this legislation all goes back about 15 years.

Section 2 approved.

[ 5486 ]

section 3.

N. Macdonald: There's quite a bit in

section 3, as well, that I just want to understand. Maybe the most effective way of dealing with

section 3, as well, is to simply provide the rationale for

section 3 and for the minister to characterize it as either a minor change…. This obviously seems like a far bigger change that's been suggested here. Maybe, to begin with, the minister can characterize what is intended with this

section and also give his impressions of the scope of the change.

Hon. P. Bell: This particular

section of the bill is intended to protect the midterm timber supply, in particular with regards to the mountain pine beetle areas. As we all know, there are still significant volumes of dead pine that are available to us, and we want to ensure that we protect the green stands for as long as possible so that there is incremental resource through the midterm, which I consider to be 15 to 70 years in terms of timber availability. It just gives us incremental tools to direct the harvest into, particularly, dead pine stands.

N. Macdonald: The minister invites the question of what specifically is being done to protect that green fibre. How does that specifically work?

Hon. P. Bell: This particular tool would give the chief forester the ability to set an upper limit on the harvest of any green stands within a mountain pine beetle area. There would be a maximum green volume that could be harvested and then the partition volume, as well, of the dead pine stands. It sets an upper limit for the TSA, for the licensees, on green trees to be harvested in that area.

N. Macdonald: I guess part of what I want to understand is: how does this relate to timber supply reviews that are currently underway?

[1515]

Hon. P. Bell: I am tempted to say that this doesn't directly relate to the timber supply reviews that are currently underway, but that's not entirely accurate, because without this tool, the chief forester would have to make certain assumptions about the amount of green timber that would be harvested over the next ten to 20 years. That would then reduce the amount of timber that was available in the midterm timber supply and not allow him to secure the midterm supply of green stands.

So although there's perhaps not a direct relationship between this particular amendment and the timber supply reviews, there is an indirect one in the sense that the chief forester, knowing that he or she has access to this tool, is allowed a broader range of decisions in protecting the midterm timber supply.

N. Macdonald: Hopefully, this is connected. So this is a tool for the forester. Now, the minister actually makes the allocation. What is the relationship between this and allocation? Is there a relationship? How does the minister see this impacting decisions he'll have to make?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to make sure that the member isn't confused between two terms, in terms of annual allowable cut and allocation. The chief forester establishes the annual allowable cut. The minister actually allocates the annual allowable cut for any given TSA.

Once the chief forester sets a partition amount of green timber, then it would be up to the Minister of Forests to decide how that timber is metered out. Now, in some situations one might choose to meter out the green timber in a different way than on a straight-line basis relative to what the existing licence volume is. That would largely be dependent on the nature of the mill that was being supplied.

The member for Cariboo North has plywood plants in his region and would know that you're really unable to make veneer out of dead pine stands when it's checked significantly. So a plywood plant might require a higher level of green timber to be provided to it. So the Minister of Forests would presumably consider those sorts of factors in his or her allocation decision.

B. Simpson: The minister is correct. We are trying to understand the complexity in the relationship between the determination of an annual allowable cut and the partitioning of an annual allowable cut with a specific objective in mind. In this case in the mountain pine beetle area the specific objective is potentially protecting green stands in order to protect the midterm timber supply.

Then as that determination is made, the minister will get a recommendation from the chief forester, I assume, in a timber supply review that the cut should be set at this level. But there are some presumptions in the cut that these types of partitions are going to be put into place.

The minister then is going to have to make some allocation decisions on the basis of that. The minister has referenced my riding. In my riding it's more complicated than just a plywood plant because the operating areas of the licensees are very different from each other, depending on whether you're on the east side or the west side of the Fraser River. The minister is aware of that.

If you've got licences in traditional kinds of operating areas and operating interests east of the Fraser, you're more into those green stands than if you are on the west side of the Fraser. As the minister must well know, Canfor and Tolko have traditionally and historically operated west, and West Fraser has traditionally operated east, as much as that flips their own names around, but that's what happens.

[1520]

[ 5487 ]

We want to get into the minister's role in determining some of the work that's going to be done on determining partitions and various other things. When you get into the allocation, what's the relationship between the chief forester saying that okay, in the Quesnel timber supply area or the Prince George timber supply area, here's what he or she believes is the annual allowable cut; here are the constraints in order to achieve that on partitions…? Now the minister has to go and give allocations.

Will that also inform the minister's allocation so that people are equally getting access to green timber or whatever is available there? Does the minister then have to juggle what is available green timber versus being pushed into, say, 70 percent dead pine? That's really the question we're getting at.

Hon. P. Bell: That was a more complex question than I thought it was. The answer to the question is that the operating areas hold no basis in law. In fact, if an annual allowable cut partition established for a given licensee put them in a place where they were unable to operate in their existing or traditional operating area, we would be working within that timber supply area to make sure that they were working in an area that could reflect their cut partitions and allocations.

B. Simpson: Again, this is where it does get complicated. This has significant implications within the mountain pine beetle area in particular, but it could eventually make its way to the coast because of the issue around second growth and the commercial viability of second growth. I know there was some discussion about using some partitions there.

[1525]

What this bill does…. Again, we're in

section 3 of the amendment but in

section 75.02 of the act, which is being inserted as a result of this bill. You've got, again, some of the language around the minister making determinations by order, which I presume is order-in-council. I'm seeing a no there. So maybe we can get a clarification on what…. By ministerial order. But the minister is actually making determinations on existing operating areas, including tree farm licences, in order to achieve objectives established by the chief forester.

One is in a very constrained timber supply area. The minister may not have the luxury of being able to go to another operating area. Again, I think Quesnel's a very good example of that, where there's a clear delineation east-west of the Fraser. To suggest that Canfor or Tolko just get operating areas east of the Fraser may not go over well in there, where that's traditionally been West Fraser's area.

The minister contends that those operating areas hold no rights under law. But is it possible that they hold rights by practice, in that the government compensated these companies for the 20-percent clawback based on traditional licences and operating areas? If I understand this bill correctly, what it does is it gives the minister rights to issue ministerial orders, reducing cut levels in areas that could be seen as a clawback, especially in a TFL. Maybe I'll stop there. Is that what this is doing?

Let's take the TFL as an example, where that is a clear right — lines on the map and area-based tenure, the whole works — a certain volume allocated for cut based on a sustainable level determined by the chief forester.

Now, because of partitioning and whatnot, as we understand this, that cut may come down, and the minister may actually have to issue a ministerial order to reduce the cut in certain stands or timber types or whatever, and may not be able to push the company into achieving its full volume in the other stands. Is that a correct understanding of what's possible here?

Hon. P. Bell: TFL AAC determinations are done independently from the remainder of the TSA. There is no interconnection between a timber supply area annual allowable cut and a TFL annual allowable cut. That said, if there is a partition done in a TFL, it strictly is impacting the single licensee that is operating in that TFL, and it would be a division between two timber types, in this case dead pine and green timber. So it is completely separate and distinct from anything that goes on in the remainder of a TSA.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's clarification there, but I understand that. This bill talks about….

Section 75.02(3). So yes, it's a separate process to do the TFL annual allowable cut determination, but it says specifically in here that "if the chief forester specifies an annual allowable cut partition for a tree farm licence area, the minister, by order, may, if he or she considers it necessary to ensure the attribution specified in the partition is carried out, specify a limit on the harvested volume" for the various timber types.

What the minister was saying before, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get at…. In some of these tree farm licences and in some of the timber supply areas, it may not simply be that you can push with a partition into an area that is commercially viable to get the volume that's given under licence, in the case of TSAs, or under a tree farm licence, in the case of a TFL. So if you can't achieve the total volume that either historically has been the case or that by licence has been the case, would it be possible that these licensees can come back to the Crown and claim compensation?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, there are provisions that will not allow for compensation, so the answer to the question is no.

[1530]

[ 5488 ]

B. Simpson: We canvassed this in estimates debate about the problems. The minister indicated he understands that in particular the Quesnel timber supply area is a problem and, we know, getting up into the lakes along the Highway 16 area and up in the Prince George area.

Are there licensees that, if we use partition, may end up not being able to achieve volume as the result of partitioning and keeping the green volume on hold, if you will, in order to protect midterm timber supply, pushing people into 70 percent dead pine, 60 percent dead pine, whatever the case may be? Could it be possible that we end up, as a result of using partition, making it economically not viable for some licensees to achieve their volume that they want to keep their mills running?

Hon. P. Bell: The AAC determination would determine the amount of timber that could be harvested in any given TSA, and that AAC determination would be partitioned into different types of timber — in this case, what we're referring to as dead pine versus green stands of spruce, balsam, perhaps some residual pine and some fir. So you have two separate portions of AAC.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

However, the licensees that operate in that area…. If there was a reduction in allowable cut, it would have an equal impact on each licensee. I think perhaps what the member is asking is: in the short term is there any risk by this amendment to individual licensees? I think the answer to that is no.

Over the long term, is there a risk? I think we already know there is a risk, specifically in the Quesnel TSA and others that the member has mentioned, and that's exactly why this piece of legislation is here. It's to try and protect the interests in the midterm timber supply and keep as much of the green stands as possible available for those licensees to continue to function in that midterm.

N. Macdonald: Still on

section

Section 3 has changed to 75.02. Part of that change is the introduction of the idea of cruising rather than scaling. I guess first, in terms of scaling, has the minister considered or studied job loss related to scaling? Has there been any consideration of scaling jobs being lost?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asks if there's potential for job loss on the scaling side of the business. I suppose, technically, the answer to that question would be yes. This does, however, I think, provide greater access to very low-quality timber, bioenergy type material, that if there's significant incremental cost added to it, would be unlikely to be harvested. So is there real loss or not? I suspect the answer to that is: "No, there isn't."

It is a different way of selling timber, though, by selling it on a cruise-based versus a scale-based system. That does require a more intensive level of cruising as well. The member for Cowichan Valley, I think it is, had asked about that the other day in his second reading speech. In fact, we would, of course, have a very high standard for cruising in order to ensure that the timber is being appropriately charged for.

This is a shift. We think it's a positive shift, and it will ensure that we will be able to recover a greater portion of the dead pine beetle stands than we might have otherwise recovered.

N. Macdonald: Presumably, the impact on scalers' jobs…. Was there specifically a study of that, or is the minister…? The minister sounds like he's presuming. Was that actually studied — as to: would scaling jobs be lost?

Hon. P. Bell: No, there was no study done of that.

[1535]

N. Macdonald: Scaling is the traditional way that the Crown makes sure the true value of wood is represented in what is charged to companies. While cruising is a fairly common practice, it is new as a way of deciding how much revenue presumably should come from licensees.

The question is…. The minister has indicated that there's a comfort level that the cruising will be accurate, but could the minister please go through and describe the work that's being done to ensure that cruising is an accurate way of the government getting value for the product there.

Hon. P. Bell: I should start out by saying that we don't anticipate any change in revenue to the Crown as a result of this shift, in terms of the dollar value for any of the stands.

The studies that we have done, though, reveal that in scale-based systems of charging for timber, there's a 15 percent error rate. In cruise-based systems charging for that same timber, that's reduced to a 12 percent error rate. Also, recently we've amended the cruising manual to ensure that appropriate practices are in place to fully value timber.

I can share with the member opposite that, as someone who has some experience in log harvesting, once a tree is de-limbed and sitting in a log deck, oftentimes they look the same, regardless of whether they were dead or alive when they were harvested,

whereas when the tree is still standing and you're walking through the forest, it's pretty easy to tell what the quality of that tree is. It sometimes is easier to tell with the tree standing than with it on the ground.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, the minister is saying that cruising is more accurate than scaling. Is that what the minister is saying?

[ 5489 ]

Hon. P. Bell: The standard that we have for the sampling error is, in fact, 3 percent lower, yes.

N. Macdonald: Presumably that research is public information. Is the minister saying that those studies that show that cruising is more accurate than scaling is public information?

Hon. P. Bell: I may not have made myself clear in my first response, so I'll just try and reiterate, if I can. The standard that is set for cruising is a 12 percent error rate, and the standard that is set for scaling is a 15 percent error rate. That is the standard that's set. Are there studies that have been done over the years? I guess. But that is the standard that has to be achieved for either cruising or scaling.

[1540]

The other response — we haven't kind of gotten to this, but I think it really gets to the theme of the member opposite's question — is that these stands are largely very low-value stands. They're stands that have been dead for five, ten, 15 years and would only receive an upset stumpage rate of 25 cents a cubic metre. So this technique or tool, although it is something that we'd like to see expanded over time, would only be used in these very low-value stands at this point in time.

N. Macdonald: Just to be very clear, the minister is not saying…. He's talking about errors, acceptable errors — right? — 12 percent, 15 percent. But to be very clear, the minister is not saying that cruising is more accurate than scaling. The minister is not saying that — or is he? Just to clarify, is cruising more accurate than scaling?

Hon. P. Bell: Their scaling systems are more accurate than cruising systems, but the error rate is, as I have articulated a couple of times…. Again, just to remind the member, we are talking about stands that are very low-value stands, and we're trying to do what we can to incent the utilization of those stands.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, then, cruising is less accurate than scaling, but the minister is saying that I need to remember, the public needs to remember, that these are low-value areas. Therefore, the less accurate system can be justified in that way because presumably, if cruising was more accurate, it would be used provincewide — right? Just so that I have that clear, the question then is: who will be responsible for the cruising?

Hon. P. Bell: The model is similar to what goes on under a scale-based system. In other words, the licensee is responsible for scaling the timber. The ministry then goes and checks scales, specific sample loads, to ensure compliance with the level or the scale that is determined.

The same occurs with cruise-based sales. The licensee does the cruise, and then the ministry checks the cruise. The standard, by policy that we have…. Suspecting that I know what the next question from the member opposite will be: how often do we check those? The policy in cruise-based sales is that 100 percent of permits are checked.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so just to understand this, the minister talks about permits. But let's just talk about individual cruises. Does that mean that 100 percent of the cruises are checked by the ministry? If not 100 percent, then what percentage of cruises are checked by the ministry?

[1545]

Hon. P. Bell: Again, going back to the model that we currently operate under, a scale-based system, sample loads vary depending on a specific stratum of timber and how many loads are coming into that stratum, but typically, in a larger stratum, the sample frequency is one in a hundred loads.

In the cruise-based system, all the same principles will apply in terms of each individual permit being checked. Now, it is possible that one permit could be broken down into a couple of cruises as opposed to a single cruise, so there's a little bit of area there, perhaps, to explore. But the principle is the same in terms of maintaining a high level or standard of checking for accuracy in the cruises as it would be in a scale-based system.

N. Macdonald: I mean, it would not be uncommon for a permit to require many cruises. Just to come back to a really specific answer, is the intention to have government personnel, ministry staff, to check cruises on each of the cruises that the licensee would do? Is that the intention?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes.

N. Macdonald: So each cruise will have a check cruise. Maybe the minister could just explain how the check cruise works. Presumably, the cruise would be an extensive look at the volumes that are there, and the check cruise, presumably, would not be a repeat of the whole cruise but would look at one

section and just see if that one

section is accurate. Is that what the check cruise would entail?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, handy, I suppose, to have a Forests Minister who used to work in the industry and can read cruises and used to go and actually check cruises the odd time to make sure I was getting what I thought I would be buying.

As the member opposite will likely know, there's a series of cruise lines in any given permit area, and then

[ 5490 ]

there are plots along that cruise line. Each one of those plots is articulated in the cruise document and, specifically, what's in each of those cruise plots.

There are really three things that are checked by government staff. The first one is that they will arbitrarily select some plots within that stand and look and check and make sure that the plot was done properly and that what was actually identified as being there is there. The second is that the boundaries of the cruise will, again, be checked by the government staffer. The third is the stratification, the timber type, the height of the timber.

Does it line up with the overall cruise information? Those would be the three elements that are checked by government staff.

N. Macdonald: Presumably, there's a unique skill set in terms of doing cruises. With the scaling system, the logs will be brought to a central area to be scaled, and government staff would go to that one place to do the scaling. Presumably, what this will entail is ministry staff travelling to various remote locations to do that work.

[1550]

Since for every cruise that's going to be done, the check cruise will also take place, the question is: given the reductions in compliance and enforcement workers, given the restrictions that have been applied in terms of using vehicles, does the minister see a complication for his staff in trying to meet the requirements that this will place upon a reduced staff?

The other thing that I would mention in considering that is…. When you meet with compliance and enforcement staff, they will talk about what the minister has talked about in estimates, which is that somehow compliance and enforcement staff are also going to be expected to do other work with mining inspections, with conservation officer work. It does beg the question: is the staff in place to effectively monitor the cruising that the minister is talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: The staff that do the check cruising will be, actually, revenue branch staff, not compliance and enforcement staff, so it's a different pool of staff. I'm not sure where the member opposite is getting his information on vehicle use, but there's no restriction on vehicle use within the ministry for staff in their day-to-day work. Any restrictions around travel pertain to the sorts of travel that would be for other purposes, not the day-to-day work that takes place by the staff.

N. Macdonald: So with scaling, it's a fairly definitive process — right? The ministry would come in and check to see that the scaling is being done accurately. With cruising, there perhaps is a wider range of possibilities that there would be a disagreement in terms of the conclusion that's reached in a cruise.

The question I have for the minister is: if there is a check cruise and it disagrees with the cruising information that the licensee has provided, what is the process that goes on to decide what the outcome should be? There clearly has to be a process. What is it?

Hon. P. Bell: I mentioned earlier to the member opposite the 12 percent error rate standard within the cruise. If the cruise is outside of that standard, then the cruise is rejected, and the stand would have to be recruised.

N. Macdonald: Who would do the recruising?

Hon. P. Bell: It's the licensee that would recruise, and we would recheck that new cruise.

N. Macdonald: Just to go back to some of the minister's earlier answers to my questions. The 12 percent that the minister talked about, in terms of the cruise, is not really talking about the accuracy of cruising. That is just the envelope. After 12 percent disagreement, that kicks off a rejection of the work that the company has done.

Just to clarify that, is that my understanding? It really doesn't say…. The 12 percent that the minister used around cruising and the 15 percent for scaling had nothing to do with the accuracy of the two systems. It's simply that that's the envelope allowed — a 12 percent disagreement.

[1555]

Beyond that it kicks into an appeal process or a requirement that the government indicates to the licensee that they have to go and recruise. Then, presumably, there would again be another check of the work of the licensee. Is that all accurate?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the answer to the question is yes. In addition, there are other reasons why a cruise may be rejected. If there were specific other errors found that were deemed to be significant, even if it were to fall within the 12 percent error rate, the cruise could be rejected as well.

N. Macdonald: Could the minister give examples of other instances where a cruise would be rejected?

Hon. P. Bell: There are a number. I can provide the member with three very quickly: if there were any trees missed in a plot — in other words, not recorded as part of an individual cruise plot; if the area calculation for the permit was incorrect; or if there were incorrect species calculated within a cruise plot. Those would be three examples.

N. Macdonald: Just under the

section that talks about "Increase or waiver of harvested volume limit in order,"

[ 5491 ]

which is 75.03(1). "On request of the holder of a licence to which an order made under

section 75.02 applies, the minister may increase or waive the harvested volume limit specified for that licence if the minister is satisfied…." Just an explanation, why would that be given to the minister? In what circumstances does the minister foresee needing to use this ability?

Hon. P. Bell: There are two specific examples. And I need to correct a previous statement that I made that is incorrect as well.

The two examples where a minister may choose to utilize this tool would be where there's a First Nations agreement in place that would not allow for the partitioning to be done in a way that still meets the First Nations agreement. Another example might be an additional forest health issue where it's not just mountain pine beetle, but maybe there's a fir beetle issue, as well, that complicates the situation.

Previously, I'd indicated that I believed that the minister had the ability to award portions of a partition for a special manufacturing requirement like a plywood plant. I was incorrect in saying that. That is not one of the abilities that a minister would have — to allocate portions of a cut that is partitioned.

[1600]

N. Macdonald: Okay, maybe to come back to 75.02, just to clearly understand. The intention with this is to take wood that has been compromised by disease, and it is intended, in part, to deal with the challenges that the government has found so far in terms of moving fibre to biofuel. Is that centrally the intention of 75.02 and of what's going on here?

Hon. P. Bell: There are really two elements to this piece. We've explored both of them at different times over the last half-hour or so.

One is to be able to better utilize the very low-quality material that's been left behind. The member has described that quite accurately. One of those pieces is bioenergy, but there may be other uses for the low-quality material that's left behind.

The other is the partition piece, which protects the midterm timber supply and allows us to try and keep a stable industry going forward. So there are the two elements to this piece, and they both work together to achieve those objectives.

N. Macdonald: Maybe again for context too. What sort of volume are we talking about? I realize that it will be a ballpark, but what sort of volume are we actually talking about in terms of this sort of a licence being applied?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite asks a question that is very hard to answer, because it's unclear to me whether the member is asking what the volume of material is that might be partitioned kind of provincewide or whether in any specific timber supply area. That varies significantly.

Quesnel, of course, has been the hardest-hit timber supply area, with about 70 percent pine. There are many other TSAs that have very low percentages of pine, and then there are TSAs that are in between those two places.

I'm not sure whether I can accurately answer the member's question. But again, the intent of this piece in particular is to ensure that we can recover as much of the dead pine material as possible by making it easier to get at those stands, reducing costs in the processing of those stands and also protecting the midterm timber supply so that our licensees have the opportunity to look into the future and make capital investments in a way that will keep those jobs and those opportunities in the communities where they exist today.

N. Macdonald: The minister, just because of the expertise that the minister has available to him, will probably…. It might be right in here, but we are talking about areas that the minister has characterized as low-value, and I believe there is a percentage of pine beetle–affected wood that sort of defines the type of forest that we're talking about.

[1605]

With those parameters and with no expectation that I will throw it back in the face if the minister is off by a certain percentage, just as we go forward — like I say, very ballpark — what's the scope of what we're talking about here? I think the largest area is, obviously, around the Quesnel and Prince George area. But can you give a ballpark figure as to the extent of the area that we're looking at with this?

Hon. P. Bell: The original estimate of the impact of the mountain pine beetle was 1.1 billion cubic metres of pine stands across the province, but that number is really a moving target. We're finding in the Kootenays right now that the expansion of the infestation has reduced dramatically. In the Peace we've had some good success. Conversely, in the Quesnel–Prince George area there's not a lot of pine left alive. So it's a very difficult moving target, and that 1.1 billion doesn't reflect the amount of pine that's been harvested over the last four, five, six years.

I think what the member is trying to get at is: how broad an application of this tool will there be? And I think it's fair to say that in the pine-dominated areas of Quesnel, Burns Lake, Houston, Prince George, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James we expect that this will be used very widely.

N. Macdonald: Just given the scope…. I'll come back to where I started. The scaling, presumably, is a fairly accurate

[ 5492 ]

process. The flexibility that the ministry accepts is around 15 percent error before the ministry kicks in with a process of trying to get the licensee to be more accurate.

How would the minister characterize, in percentage terms, the accuracy of cruising? Is it 95 percent accurate? Is it 85 percent accurate? We are talking about large volumes, even though they are of lower value, as the minister has said. Here again, something that…. I accept that it would be a fairly ballpark figure, but can the minister put a percentage in terms of the accuracy of cruising?

[1610]

Hon. P. Bell: I can never resist the opportunity to refer back to the member's previous career as a social studies teacher and my interest in mathematics at the University of British Columbia. Between the two of us, we have a large portion of the educational forum covered off, so I hate to do a statistical lesson for the member opposite, but I will, just because I can.

When there's an error rate — whatever error rate; 5 percent or 10 percent or whatever it happens to be — it's on both sides of the line. In other words, you could have a 10 percent error rate where a stand is overcruised by 10 percent and an error rate where a stand is undercruised by 10 percent. The more input that you put into the statistical box, the higher degree of accuracy you receive.

The total revenue risk to the province is minimal, keeping in mind that these stands are very low-value stands already. The tool is only used in stands that are low-value stands and probably at upset stumpage rates of 25 cents. But the economic activity that will accrue as a result of the different model of recovery and encouraging full-stand utilization will generate incremental value.

The revenue risk, while there is perhaps a small one, balances out by the increased use of the tool, as you have statistical evidence demonstrating that you have errors on both sides of the average line.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the lesson. Just to be clear, then, the 12 percent is not an arbitrary number that the ministry has decided upon. It's based on the statistical evidence that cruises will be either 12 percent more or 12 percent less. Maybe it's time for another lesson. So it's not an arbitrary number.

This is based on study of cruising, where essentially the minister is saying there is fluctuation of 12 percent one way or another. But other than that, the accuracy of cruising would not normally fall outside of those parameters, and that's based on study.

Hon. P. Bell: The 12 percent number was deemed to be an appropriate number, given the level of revenue risk associated with these stands being very low-quality stands.

N. Macdonald: Well, what is the level of revenue risk? What is the number?

Hon. P. Bell: I used to have a six-axle logging truck, and a six-axle logging truck would haul about 40 cubic metres of timber on average.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite wants a little extra time to write this down, because it's a math question, not a socials question.

[1615]

The stumpage on that truck would be $10 on that truckload of logs. If there was an error rate of 15 percent, it would be $1.50.

N. Macdonald: The minister was taking me back to grade 6 with my math anxiety. I thought you were going to test me on the answer.

Okay, so the volumes are huge there for $1.50, but nevertheless, it's considered a minuscule amount.

Let's go to 75.03. The minister talked about considerations, such as First Nations. What is the process in terms of engaging First Nations on the request from the holder of the licence to increase or waive the harvested volume limit? Is there a process that we're talking about related to 75.03?

Hon. P. Bell: We're venturing dangerously into the study of social studies, so the member opposite may have to correct me on this one.

There may be a licence agreement with a First Nation that requires a specific type of timber or quality of timber to be provided to that First Nation, and that may fall outside of the partition values for a specific timber supply area. If in the allocation of that timber….

The way the timber is allocated may be done in a non-proportional rate to that specific First Nations licence versus other licences, or the minister would have that authority to make that decision. That would be an example of where that could be used.

N. Macdonald: We'll go to consolidation, subdivision or replacement of licences. It's 75.04. If the minister could characterize the intent of this part of

section 3 and what the minister attempts to do with this provision.

Hon. P. Bell: This particular tool allows the intent of a minister's order on a group of licences or a timber supply area to continue in the event that those licences are subdivided or reapportioned in some way. It just extends the order through and doesn't allow a licensee to avoid the partition by way of subdividing a portion of their licence.

N. Macdonald: Looking at 75.06, it says: "On request of the holder of a licence to which an order made under

section 75.02 applies, the minister may grant relief from

[ 5493 ]

a penalty imposed…." I just would like the minister to explain the criteria. What circumstances does the minister perceive as appropriate times to grant relief from the penalty?

[1620]

Hon. P. Bell: This is a final relief valve for a licensee who might overharvest a portion of their partition, and if they've gone through all the regular processes and have not been successful in acquiring relief from a penalty that has been recommended, the final decision would rest with the minister if the minister chose to establish a regulation under which that relief could be provided.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so just to understand, what sort of penalties are we talking about? Can the minister give examples of the extremes of penalties?

Hon. P. Bell: This is the partition overcut penalty, which is typically double the stumpage rate for a specific stand.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister give an example of a case? Obviously, this is something that the minister anticipates as being a problem. Can the minister give, like I say, a better sense of dollar figures that were being considered here?

Hon. P. Bell: This isn't a provision that we would necessarily see any minister utilizing on a regular basis. It is available as a final relief valve in the event that a ministerial decision is necessary.

The member opposite asked what kind of money could be involved, I think, in a decision of this nature. I recall at one point in time stumpage rates up as high as $65 or $70 a cubic metre. I suppose cedar might have even been higher than that. I wasn't logging on the coast. I was logging in the Interior. So if there was a large overcut in a circumstance like that, I suppose the penalty could be fairly large. It's not something that we anticipate either having to use or wanting to use, but we do think it's appropriate to have that relief valve in there.

N. Macdonald: The obvious question for a minister is that it moves from what would normally be a fairly administrative function into one possibly in the political realm. Possibly, this is just language that would be normal — that the minister represents a process or the ministry — but what specifically is the process that would go on that would lead to the minister granting relief?

Hon. P. Bell: The licensee would go through all the normal appeal mechanisms that are currently in place. If the licensee is declined the appeal at all of those various opportunities, then the licensee must request relief from the minister. Then the minister would have to actually approve, by regulation, relief, which would require an order-in-council to be approved. So that would be the final mechanism, and it wouldn't be a ministerial decision. It would be a minister's recommendation to cabinet and a cabinet decision.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, is this something that licensees or others in the forest industry have asked for?

[1625]

Hon. P. Bell: No, we thought it was appropriate to have it in place in this piece of legislation.

N. Macdonald: Does the minister not see that some could perceive the possibility of a conflict of interest if, ultimately, this is left to the minister's discretion? I mean, there are many circumstances where it could certainly create the impression that there is a political aspect to this, when I think the public would perceive it more appropriately to be an administrative process. What are the minister's views on that?

Hon. P. Bell: There are tools, which have been available to all governments over the decades, called remission orders, which follow a similar pattern to this. It just allows the Forests Minister to bring it forward rather than having it go through Finance.

N. Macdonald: Just maybe one final question. Clearly, it went through Finance for a reason, since it was perhaps a check on the Forests Minister. So there was a process in place. Clearly, with this, the minister thinks that it was broken in some way. Maybe just a fuller explanation of why there was the need to simplify a process that absolves licensees or those in the industry from penalty.

Hon. P. Bell: This specific

section allows for tailor-made initiatives specific to forestry, as opposed to generic ones, but the approval process is identical. It would require the support of cabinet in order for the penalty to be reversed.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand. For somebody who has had a penalty imposed on them, it's as simple as having a representative of the company or the owner of the company come to the minister, see the minister maybe in the constituency office or see the minister here in the offices, and simply ask to have the relief granted. That's the process, and then the minister would take that proposal to cabinet as a whole. Is that the process that's being laid out here?

Hon. P. Bell: Unlike some remission orders, in which it is a requirement for the minister responsible to take

[ 5494 ]

those remission orders forward if it is requested of the minister, this would not require a Minister of Forests to take forward a request unless the Minister of Forest