British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 8, 2003

H0508pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 8, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, May 8, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6613 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 6613 Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44) Hon. M. de Jong Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Hon.

M. de Jong Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6614 B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists B. Lekstrom New tower at Vancouver General Hospital K. Johnston Health care services in Burnaby J. Nuraney Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6615 Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. MacPhail Hon. R.

Neufeld Aerospace industry proposal for Kelowna J. Kwan Hon. R. Thorpe Management of Coquihalla Highway K. Krueger Hon. J. Reid Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 6617 Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, first report Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6618 J. Kwan J.

MacPhail Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 6618 Community Charter (Bill 14) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 6618 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong B. Lekstrom D. MacKay

6613 THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Weisbeck: It is my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a distinguished researcher in the field of parliamentary and constitutional law. Joining us in the gallery this afternoon is Ms. Oonagh Gay of the British House of Commons Library at Westminster. Ms. Gay is in Victoria to meet many of our statutory officers and to examine their unique roles and the related topics of accountability and independ- ence of parliament. Would the House please make our guest welcome. [1405] Hon. S.

Santori: T h i s a f t e r n o o n i t g i v e s m e g r e a t pleasure to introduce two of my constituents from Trail and Rossland, Mr. Byron Siemens and Brad Dasiuk, both in the insurance business and former competitors of mine. They were very happy that I was elected in 2001. I heard their insurance sales went up 40 percent since I left the area. I would ask at this time that the House to make them feel very welcome. J.

Nuraney: It gives me great pleasure today to in- troduce my biggest supporter in all aspects of my life, my good wife Gulshan, who has brought with her, her family visiting from India: her brother Salim, his wife Zakia and their son Samir, who will be ten years old in two days. Also accompanying her is her sister Shehnaaz, who lives in North Vancouver. May the House please make them welcome. J. Les: On behalf of the member for Surrey- Tynehead, it's my pleasure to welcome to the House 30 grade 5 students from Fraser Heights Secondary School in Surrey. They are accompanied today by their teach- ers, Mr.

Tino D'Alfonso and Ms. Sharon Shilliday. They are here touring the buildings today, and I would like to invite the House to please welcome the students from Surrey. W. Cobb: Today it gives me great pleasure to in- troduce a group of very hard-working municipal lead- ers from around the province and particularly from the heartlands. They're here today representing the Coun- cil of Resource Communities, and they're here helping us develop the rural strategy.

With us we have Mayor Donna Barnett from 100 Mile House; Mayor Colin Kinsley from Prince George; Mayor Ross Priest from Cranbrook; and last but not least, the only Willie Mitchell fan in the House, Gerry Furney. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to introduce two constitu- ents of mine from Peachland, British Columbia: Dwayne and Dorothy Smith. I'd also like to introduce Jeff Smith from Victoria. Would the House please make them very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 Hon.

M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled For- ests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 44 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce to the Legislature today Bill 44, the Forests Statutes Amend- ment Act (No. 2). The bill amends the Forest Act to deliver on the government's commitment to the de- fined forest area management model. These changes will enable licensees and the B.C. timber sales program to carry out a coordinated timber supply analysis for their timber supply area.

The Forest Act is also amended to clarify who can hold a road permit and to harmonize the language re- garding construction and maintenance of forest roads with the Forest and Range Practices Act. Lastly, the bill amends the Forest Act and Range Act to strengthen their compliance and enforcement regimes and to harmonize them with that which exists in the Forest and Range Practices Act. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the ministry's compli- ance and enforcement program. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1410] FOREST (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 45 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Mr.

Speaker, Bill 45 continues our work on the forestry revitalization plan and its impor- tant goal of building and revitalizing B.C.'s most impor- tant industry. This bill completes the legislative work required to introduce a more market-based pricing sys- tem. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the For- est Act introduced through this bill establish a market-

6614 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 based approach to tenure allocation. In effect, any future forest licence, tree farm licence or timber sale licence will be awarded on the basis of a competitive bid. The bill introduces stronger measures to prevent abuses of the market system. For example, it will in- crease penalties for collusion in timber auctions or for restricting competition in the sale or purchase of logs. It will also establish penalties for submitting inaccurate appraisal data. This bill will also introduce a new type of tenured licence: the community salvage licence.

This licence will deliver opportunities for communities interested in salvage logging — opportunities communities have told us they want. In

summary, this bill delivers on commitments made by this House to ensure a more market-based system. It delivers on our commitments to open up opportunities for more operators in our forest sector. It will allow our forest sector to do what it does best: get the best use out of the public resource and create good jobs and strong communities. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today. Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) B.C. COALITION OF MOTORCYCLISTS B. Lekstrom: Today I rise to speak on an issue. To- day was the annual MLA ride, sponsored by BCCOM. The British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists is a professional lobbying organization that works on be- half of all motorcyclists' rights in the province of British Columbia. BCCOM was founded in 1985 by concerned riders who felt that they were facing discrimination based solely upon their mode of transportation. Since its inception BCCOM has evolved into much more, becoming instrumental in the promotion of mo- torcycle safety, education and awareness in British Co- lumbia.

The coalition has increased the profile of the motorcycling community in both the provincial and municipal levels of government. As well, BCCOM en- dorses, recognizes and supports all aspects of motorcy- cling from street and touring all the way to racing and off-road riding. BCCOM is a membership-driven organization that relies solely on membership dues to maintain a strong voice for the motorcycling community. BCCOM has lobbied and been instrumental in a number of issues. They have lobbied to have motorcyclists included in the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes which are in use.

They have also successfully worked with municipalities to have designated motorcycle parking in various areas of the municipalities. They've also achieved the creation and implementation of collector plates for motorcycles in British Columbia. They've helped establish and main- tain off-road riding areas. As well, they are also respon- sible for having May proclaimed…. The minister today proclaimed May as Motorcycle Awareness Month. Presently BCCOM is working on a number of initia- tives, which I have the privilege to work with them on. As a motorcyclist yourself, Mr.

Speaker, I know you understand the importance of making sure that British Columbians are aware of the safety aspect, particularly when it comes to motorcyclists. BCCOM is presently working with ICBC on the issue of transferable plates for motorcyclists who may own more than one motorcycle. Many own two or three, from vintage to brand-new. The ability to work with transferable plates has been a very important is- sue for BCCOM. I'm proud to say that they've met with ICBC, and ICBC is working with them today. In closing, I would like to thank BCCOM for the work that they do on behalf of motorcyclists.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. [1415] Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It is indeed nice to feel the wind in your hair. [Laughter.] NEW TOWER AT VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL K. Johnston: Today is a great day for health care in Vancouver and British Columbia. Today the Premier officially opened the in-patient tower in the Jim Patti- son Pavilion at the Vancouver General Hospital. On hand at the opening were Keith Purchase, board chair of the Vancouver coastal health authority, and Jim Pat- tison, in whose honour the facility is named.

Fifteen years after construction began, the 19-storey tower at Vancouver General Hospital is now open and will provide 459 new beds and modernized equipment and care facilities for patients. The patient rooms in the tower will be bright, and each one will have its own washroom with shower. Each is equipped with an overhead patient lift. The designers ensured that the building was flexi- ble and would allow for expansion of network services and increased power requirements in the future. The provincial government announced funding in 1999 to complete the tower as part of a $156.4 million VGH redevelopment project.

At the same time, philanthro- pist and entrepreneur Jim Pattison donated a gift of $20 million over seven years to establish a centre for excel- lence in prostate research. The completion of this project is a prime example of how government, the health care community, private partners and the province can come together and focus on patient care. The consolidation of services into this facility will enable the health care system to deliver patient services more effectively. This is a tremendous day for patient care in the province and for the resi- dents of my area of Vancouver-Fraserview.

The tower will mark a new phase of health care delivery and ensure greater access to services for thou- sands of people who rely on Vancouver General Hospi-

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6615 tal. All of us in this province owe a debt of gratitude to those who contributed towards this project, including 10,000 staff, 500 volunteers and the charitable founda- tions of VGH and UBC. I'd like to thank them for their efforts in putting patients first. HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN BURNABY J. Nuraney: A s m y c o l l e a g u e a c r o s s t h e f l o o r s a y s sometimes: "Some more good news in the health care system." We occasionally hear from the naysayers who tell us that our health care system has lost ground since this government was elected.

A few weeks ago the Minister of Health Services gave British Columbians a progress report on the picture of health in our prov- ince. I would like to weigh in with observations of my own from the community of Burnaby. I continue to see firsthand a more positive and promising outlook that gives me reason to be confident in the direction our government and the Fraser health authority are heading. On April 25 my colleagues and I attended the opening of a new kind of highly special- ized tertiary hospice palliative care unit in the Burnaby Hospital. This unit is the first of its kind in the Fraser health region.

It will become the regional centre for patients facing life-limiting illnesses and difficult-to- manage symptoms in Burnaby, New Westminster, the Tri-Cities and beyond. Just last week I met with the Burnaby Hospital staff, who informed me that the decommissioning of the beds at the old Cascade Residence in the hospital is complete. All patients have been successfully trans- ferred to the new care homes, with little disruption to their lives. Next, after some renovations, Burnaby men- tal health services will be moving into the Cascade building at the Burnaby Hospital.

Are all our health care issues in our area dealt with? Certainly not. We have a long way to go, but I think in the past year our health authority has made some great strides in making sure the people of Burnaby have ac- cess to a health care system that directly meets their needs. We are moving in the right direction. [1420] Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS J. MacPhail: Last fall when we asked the Minister of Energy why he was planning to break B.C. Hydro in two, he didn't say it was because the government was desperate to get debt off-book.

He didn't say that it was because the government wanted to make things easier for its corporate campaign backers. He said that if we want to continue to trade in the Pacific Northwest, we have to have transmission separate from generation. He went on to say — and he said this as recently as this week again — that that was a condition imposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States — FERC for short. Well, let me read from a White Paper from the U.S. commission — that very same commission, FERC. It's available on their website. It was published just a few days ago.

Let me read what it says: "We will eliminate the proposed requirement that public utilities create or join an independent transmission provider." Now that he can't blame FERC, perhaps the minister can tell us the real reason why he's breaking up B.C. Hydro. Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'll explain it to the mem- ber, as I have done quite a fe w times. We are moving towards the future in British Columbia. We are imple- menting our energy policy.

What we want to do is have clear, transparent rules, regulations and tariffs for our independent power producers that want to gener- ate electricity in the province and actually access a transmission system without having to go to a genera- tor to be able to do that. That is good news for British Columbia and moves us forward.

Secondly, I have always said that it is not a re- quirement of FERC that we be separate, but it will be in time, and we want to be ahead of the curve on this to- tally so that we are able to access transmission in the Pacific Northwest so we can sell electricity in the United States and continue that benefit of $150 million a year, which keeps our hydro rates low for British Columbians well into the future. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, the minister is actually behind the curve. Perhaps he hasn't seen the document. You're right: it's only a week old.

It says here: "We will elimi- nate the proposed requirement that public utilities cre- ate or join an independent transmission provider." They did that last week. Get up to speed, Mr. Minister. At a time when the public utilities across the western states are successfully making their concerns about FERC plans known, when FERC itself is responding to those concerns by changing its requirement so that public utilities don't have to sell off or create inde- pendent transmission providers, this minister and this government are blindly rushing ahead with a plan that will break up B.C. Hydro.

British Columbians don't like it. The minister's hid- ing behind FERC. Will the minister admit today that he's wrong and that FERC doesn't require the breakup of B.C. Hydro, and will he pull the transmission com- pany legislation from the order paper? Or has he not seen the latest information from FERC? Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting. We have never said we're going to join an RTO or another independent system operator in the Pacific Northwest. B.C. Hydro has had discussions with the Pacific Northwest RTO since, I believe, 1997 or 1996 under a different admini- stration. I don't know.

I remember seeing a letter writ- ten by a previous Minister of Energy and Mines, Mr.

6616 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 Dan Miller, who said, in fact, in his letter that the pre- vious government, which this member was a part of, would be willing to give up control of part of B.C. Hy- dro. We have said we're not going to give up control of part of B.C. Hydro in any way, shape or form. What we've said is that we continue to have B.C. Hydro and all its assets, including the transmission assets, within public ownership. We committed to that in the energy policy, and we've done that.

We continue with that, and we will move forward with keeping it as a public entity for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. [1425] J. MacPhail: I once heard a radio commentator ac- cuse this minister of not understanding his file. Well, he just demonstrated that. The joining of an RTO in any way, even if it is nec- essary, doesn't require an independent transmission provider. That's what FERC is saying now. That's why Manitoba Hydro doesn't have to break it up. That's why British Columbians don't want B.C.

Hydro broken up into little bits that can be sold off. The minister was hiding behind FERC's require- ment earlier this week. We have the radio. He said FERC, the Americans, are demanding this independent transmission provider. He's wrong. The western Gov- ernors are expressing concerns about FERC. They've been doing the best to represent the interests of their constituents — the ratepayers in their states — against an arbitrary decision process designed in Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, here in British Columbia we have a government and a minister who are rushing ahead to do the bidding of an American regulatory body that has no jurisdiction whatsoever. FERC has…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Would the member please now put her question. J. MacPhail: S o n o w t h a t F E R C h a s s a i d t h a t i t doesn't have to have an independent transmission pro- vider, can the minister explain to us why he's hoping to sneak this legislation through before May 30, when FERC has changed the rules and says B.C. Hydro can remain whole? Whose benefit is at risk here?

His cam- paign back ers? The governme nt's plan to get debt off- book? His excuse for breaking up B.C. Hydro is gone now. Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, again, the only member in the House that's trying to raise some concerns is the member across the way, who is trying to say that we're privatizing or selling any part of B.C. Hydro. That is blatantly untrue — we have said consistently, consis- tently, consistently. It's her and her backers that don't understand a whole bunch of things and want to create fear out there. B.C. Hydro, in its whole identity, will remain in public hands.

The people of the province will continue to own the dams, the transmission and the generation for future generations to come. What the member should do is actually look at what happened in Mani- toba. They have functionally separated transmission, distribution and generation. Quebec hydro has done the same. We're doing the same thing. The transmis- s i o n l i n e s a n d t o w e r s c o n t i n u e t o b e o w n e d b y B . C . Hydro. The business on the lines will be run by BCTC. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY PROPOSAL FOR KELOWNA J.

Kwan: Residents in Kelowna are very concerned that the provincial government may be passing up an important economic opportunity. As the minister should know, the proposal would see Viking Air estab- lish an operation vacated by Western Star Trucks, gen- erating millions of dollars in economic activity. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell this House why he's passing on a partnership that would see up to a thousand jobs — new aerospace jobs — in Kelowna? Hon. R.

Thorpe: Our government is committed to ensuring that the aerospace industry in British Colum- bia has the skilled workers it needs throughout the entire province of British Columbia. I am working in cooperation with the Minister of Advanced Education, and very shortly the minister will be announcing an initiative to ensure that not only do we have skilled workers today for all of the aerospace industry in Brit- ish Columbia, but in the future we will have all the skilled workers we need to ensure that British Colum- bia continues to attract and create jobs, attract invest- ment and grow our economy. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. [1430] J. Kwan: The minister's dithering on this file. The deadline is days away. He had loads of time to actually get up to speed and move on this. Residents of Kelowna are on board with the plan; the Okanagan University College is on board; the mayor is on board. The federal government is very interested in support- ing the proposal, but they need the province to con- tribute training to make that proposal work. The Okanagan University College is a natural home for aerospace training. BCIT's aerospace training has a huge wait-list.

Why is the Minister of Competition will- ing to sacrifice thousands of jobs and economic oppor- tunity in the Okanagan just because his government has delayed, slowed, and is refusing to make an in- vestment in education? Commit today — now, in this House — that he will provide for the training dollars right now.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6617 Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a little galling to have those two members over there talk about the economy and building an investment climate in British Columbia and creating jobs in British Columbia when you two over there single-handedly destroyed the economy of British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would you please start over, hon. member. Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and let me say that our government is committed to ensuring that the skilled workers needed in the aero- space industry in British Columbia are trained in British Columbia and have employment in British Columbia. We are talking with OUC, BCIT, Northern Lights, North Island and the manufacturers and producers here in British Columbia. In fact, I am participating in a conference call this afternoon with people concerned with this file. We are working in partnership. We will not have jobs for power and forest jobs and make all kinds of promises to British Columbians that you could never deliver on.

We will ensure that our advanced education facilities produce skilled workers so that our industries can have people employed to do the job here in British Columbia. MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, like you, I've driven the Coquihalla hundreds of times…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. We will continue with question period when the Leader of the Opposition comes to order. K. Krueger: She says she's sorry.

L i k e y o u , I ' v e d r i v e n t h e C o q u i h a l l a h u n d r e d s o f times, and as you know, many people in Kamloops and Merritt and in our region travel that highway pretty much on a weekly basis. With the changes that were discussed this week, we note that people who drive the highway every week are going to be saving over $800 a year with the concession that is planned. It's also delightful to see some of the life-saving improvements that are already underway throughout the heartlands, and we know this is what the money is needed for. Interjection. K.

Krueger: The Leader of the Opposition, who spent almost as much money on the fast ferries as the Coquihalla Highway has raised in tolls in 17 years, continues to harangue me. I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation what other benefits she sees flowing to the people of our region as a result of the concession that may be put to an RFP. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Trans- portation has the floor. Hon. J. Reid: There are many benefits in our pro- posal in order to fund the transportation infrastructure we need.

It is very unfortunate that the previous gov- ernment, in their ten years, neglected the roads and the infrastructure so badly, and left a deficit for us to deal with now in a very serious way. So many of the projects that we're looking at now were already engineered under the previous govern- ment — were sitting there and just never funded. So, in looking at the benefits for this, we looked at frequent travellers. As the member says, the frequent travellers pass will mean that people who use the highway fre- quently will pay far less in the future than they've paid in the past, providing we do this deal.

And this deal is contingent on us meeting a bottom line that the prov- ince has set. [1435] We have got the opportunity through this to invest in transportation infrastructure. For example, in the southern interior alone, over the next three years we're looking at over $300 million worth of investment. We're also looking at more travellers on the high- way. More travellers on the highway will benefit all the communities from Merritt through Kamloops and Kelowna as well. That's good news for our economy. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees J.

Les: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. J. Les: I ask leave of the House to permit the mov- ing of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J. Les: I move that the report be adopted. In moving adoption of the report, I wish to note that the committee has reviewed the nomination of Dr. Jack Blaney as chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Elec- toral Reform. In fact, the committee interviewed Dr. Blaney this morning and unanimously endorses his

6618 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 nomination. He is eminently qualified to undertake this work, and he is keen to get on with the challenge of reviewing, with the members of the Citizens' As- sembly, the manner in which members of this House are elected and subsequently making a report to the House. Motion approved. Petitions J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. This is a petition for the Public Education is Our Future campaign. Join- ing the petition of 5,000 community members who are calling on the provincial government to adequately fund education is the Vancouver school board.

The document is signed by Adrienne Montani on behalf of the Vancouver school board. J. MacPhail: I rise to join my colleague in tabling the same petition from the Vancouver school board support- ing the Public Education is Our Future campaign. Orders of the Day Hon. S. Hawkins: I call report stage of Bill 14. [1440-1445] Third Reading of Bills COMMUNITY CHARTER Third reading of Bill 14 approved on the following division: YEAS — 42 Coell Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred J.

Reid Santori Barisoff Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Bond de Jong Nebbeling Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Orr Harris Nuraney Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Krueger McMahon Bray Les Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Kerr Manhas NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Bill 14, Community Charter, read a third time and passed. Hon. S. Hawkins: I call committee stage on Bill 29. Committee of the Whole House FOREST (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:46 p.m. The Chair: Members, we will have a ten-minute recess. The committee recessed from 2:48 p.m. to 2:54 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] The Chair: I call committee on Bill 29. On

section 1. [1455] J. MacPhail: My first questions are on

section 2, but I am concerned about…. This bill amends the Forest Act. Legislation was introduced today, just moments ago, that I think amends the Forest Act. Can the minister ex- plain to me…? I understand that it's not before us right now, but are we going to have to do this all over again? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there are significant amendments to the Forest Act in this bill. To the best of my recollection, though, they are different sections, and the legislation tabled today addresses entirely dif- ferent sections. J.

MacPhail: I'll just put it on record that this is the fourth, fifth or maybe sixth time that this minister has amended the Forest Act. We are debating a very, very important piece of legislation, and I have no idea what context this particular committee stage debate will have in relationship to the legislation he introduced in this House moments ago. I say this with the greatest of respect to the House: we may have to redo this debate we're having right now with the legislation the minis- ter introduced earlier this afternoon.

I just want to put into context how one millworker described to me the changes that the minister has in- troduced. It's very interesting.

He has been in the in- dustry for most of his adult life, and here's what he says: "The model for B.C. forestry has been, from the outset, one of managed plantation forestry." In other w o r d s , h e s a y s t h a t w h e n a l l o f t h e o l d g r o w t h w a s gone, the industry would be maintained through sec- ond growth, and that's described as "falldown." In other words, the concept of moving from old growth to second growth, which is always of a smaller volume than first growth…. That transition is called falldown. That falldown is what has driven investment and employment.

Job protection plans were an integral part

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6619 of this model. The reason job protection plans were an integral part of that model was because the trees were a public resource. The reason why he brought this to my attention was because he gets upset when this govern- ment talks about 13,000 jobs being lost over the last nu m b e r o f y e ars .

H e re ' s wh at he s ay s : " Y e s , t he re h as been job loss, but it has been more to do with corporate downsizing, with the technology replacing workers, the consolidation of the industry, the contracting out of maintenance, the increase of log exports, product sub- stitution and a lack of innovation to moving up the value chain." All of that is what has caused the job loss, in his view, rather than a failure of the social contract.

The reason he points this out is because this government is saying that that social contract put limitations on com- panies, and, therefore, that's the reason this govern- ment is having to rip it up. In fact, if it weren't for the provisions of the Forest Act that provided for the social contract — gaining public good from public resources — the log export market would be the only business in town.

He be- lieves that by repealing the job creation plans, this gov- ernment is creating unemployment in British Columbia and job creation south of the border. [1500] Now, whe n he expl ained his view on al l of this to me, he said: "It is not as if we can stop companies from technological change or consolidation, but rather than just allowing that to now occur without any benefit from the public resource to British Columbians, we should actually be taking an overall completely differ- ent view of how we manage our forests." It isn't just a matter of where we can clearcut now and rely on sec- ond growth to provide the same amount of resource as did first growth.

This legislation, rather than being forward-thinking at all, is actually allowing the com- panies to get away with all of the negative impacts that have occurred in communities and still have unfettered access to a public resource. I thought that was extremely interesting. I put that on the record for the minister in order to allow him to contemplate the point of view of a millworker as we go through this legislation. My first questions in this area are on

section 2, so I shall allow

section 1 to pass.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail:

Section 2 of Bill 29, the Forest (Revi- talization) Amendment Act, actually removes appurte- nancy, and it removes other linkages of tenure to pro- duction and jobs.

Section 14 of this bill provides the specifics on how and when appurtenancy requirements will be removed from licences, but this is the

section that repeals appurtenancy. I actually have some very detailed examples of ap- purtenancy agreements that I want to go through, but first of all I want to ask a couple of questions about this. This

section repeals

section 14(

f) of the Forest Act and 35(1)(

m) of the Forest Act. That now means — a forest licence is

section 14(

f) and a tree farm licence is 35(1)(m) — that with the repeal, forest licences and tree farm licences will no longer need to include provi- sions for the operation, construction or expansion of a timber-processing facility. That's what appurtenancy is. I know it's a funny word, and it is one that doesn't come naturally to those of us who are outside the industry, but that's what it means. If you get trees, you have to commit to an opera- tion, construction or expansion of a timber-processing facility — and that's gone.

Nor will the licence holders now be required, as a condition of their licence, to carry out specified measures to meet the objectives of the gov- ernment in respect of any of the items referred to in sec- tion 13(4) in the instance of a forest licence and 33(5)(

a) to (

e) in the instance of a tree lot licence. In sections 13(4) and 33(5) of the current Forest Act we note that the minister must, in awarding a forest licence, consider and evaluate the potential for the li- cence holder to do the following: create or maintain opportunities and other social benefits; manage and utilize Crown timber; further the development objec- tives of the government; meet the objectives of the gov- ernment in respect of environmental quality and man- agement of water, fisheries, wildlife and cultural heri- tage resources; and contribute to government revenues. That's all gone now.

What we have here is the removal of the requirement for those conditions and objectives from the actual licence. They still have to be considered in awarding the licence, and I will get to that in a mo- ment — about what that means. First of all, I want to review with the minister right now appurtenancy agreements that do exist. We had a bit of this discussion under Bill 27, but I want to actu- ally go through several examples of appurtenancy agreements that exist right now.

I want to ask the min- ister what's going to happen when this legislation is passed and these documents are now illegal. [1505] The first one is the forest management licence 1, Skeena. These are actually historical documents. The first one is from the 1940s. I'll just read what it says. "This licence is issued on the understanding that the licensee will build and have in operation on Watson Island, on or before December 31, 1952, a plant de- signed to produce 80,000 tonnes per year of unbleached pulp, paper or cellulose." That's from the late forties. It's an appurtenancy clause. It's an appurtenancy agreement.

What's the history of it? Well, in 1970 it is again renewed — a forest operations agreement between Skeena Kraft Ltd., TwinRiver Timber Ltd. and Celgar Ltd. It says: "Whereas Skeena owns and operates two pulp mills on Watson Island, near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and it or its associated companies operate a sawmill and may in future operate other sawmills or plants for processing wood in the northern area; and

whereas for the maintenance of such mills, sawmills and plants

6620 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 Skeena owns lands on which it must cut timber and rights to cut timber on other lands…." So there it is. It was renewed in 1970 under an appur- tenancy agreement. It was renewed again on July 10, 1986. It's still tree farm licence 1. It was renewed again in 1998. It says in 1998: "The Licensee will process all timber harvested under a cutting permit or road permit, or equivalent volumes, through a timber processing facility (

a) owned or operated by the Licensee or an affiliate of the Licensee within the meaning of

Section 53 of the Forest Act, and (

b) equipped to carry out debarking and chipping, unless the Minister exempts the Licensee in whole or in part from the requirements of this paragraph." That's still in effect. So what happens? This is an appurtenancy agree- ment. If this legislation passes, what happens? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, it is not any longer an appurtenancy provision, as the member defined in her question. The significant moment — and I am relying upon the information she has provided — apparently occurred in 1998.

Again, I'm relying on what the mem- ber has related to the House here, but in 1998, based on what she has just provided, that mill-specific appurte- nancy provision became a timber-processing require- ment. That provision, based on what she has referred the House to in 1998, says that that timber must be processed by that company anywhere. I'm not meaning to be argumentative, but we should — because there are provisions in this bill that deal with timber-processing requirements…. That is different than appurtenancy, which is a mill-specific requirement.

Apparently, in 1998 the government of the day decided there would no longer be an appurte- nancy provision in that contract and changed it. So we're talking about apples and oranges to that extent. R. Lee: May I have leave to make an introduction? Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House 27 grade 5 students of St. Helen's School from my riding of Burnaby North. Joining them is their teacher, Ms. Natola, and teaching assistant, Mr.

Ka- nosa, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students, including Mrs. King, Mrs. Renaldo, Mrs. Dube and Mrs. Kavolchuksigh. I am also pleased to hear that one of the teachers in this school, Mrs. Jussinoja, is also a daughter of the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Would the House please give our visitors the warmest welcome. [1510] Debate Continued J. MacPhail: Well, I'll tell you. The minister made that argument in Bill 27, and the workers are furious at him for making that argument.

That's why they've provided me with all of this information. The changes that have arisen in the forest manage- ment licence 1 are directly as a result of the appurte- nancy clause. These changes would not have been able to take effect or be negotiated unless there was an ap- purtenancy clause. In other words, the minister is cor- rect that in 1998 the processing could take place across the northwest, but it was as a result of the appurte- nancy clause that the company had to agree to this. That's why when the minister stood up the last time and said, "Oh, that's not an appurtenancy arrangement.

Sorry, you're wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with it," the workers immediately called and said that it was only because of the appurtenancy clause that that kind of agreement could be negotiated. It starts out with an appurtenancy, and that's why I gave the minister the history from the 1940s. The nego- tiations that result in this tree farm licence are as a re- sult of the appurtenancy agreement, the appurtenancy clause. Yes, the terms have changed. But there would be no requirement to process if there were not an ap- purtenancy clause.

They called in, in droves to make that clear to me, for me to bring up with the minister. But even given what the minister is saying, then…. Let's call it a provincial appurtenancy clause. Interjection. J. MacPhail: The minister stands there and says that it's a timber-processing clause. It's a requirement to produce jobs with the trees, and that's gone now. Is that gone under this legislation? Hon. M. de Jong: The member is getting all worked up, and she may do that, but I will try to be as candid as I can.

The link that has historically existed between har- vesting and then the same company having to process disappears with this legislation. I hope no one thinks I'm trying to be coy about that, because I've gone around this province making that very point. But if the restrictions around the export of that fibre remain as they are, then the logs are there, and they must be processed within British Columbia. Now, they may not be processed by the same com- pany.

The member would say that they may not be processed in that exact facility, but in 1998 the govern- ment of the day decided that wasn't a policy they wished to pursue. They said to the company in that case: "You may process that fibre anywhere in British Columbia at a facility you own." Yes, we have gone a step further, but let's not ac- cuse me of being coy. We're breaking the link that says if you harvest it, you must process it. J. MacPhail: How will the minister then…? Is the minister somehow saying, then, that he's keeping a provincial appurtenancy clause? Hon.

M. de Jong: The member can describe it in whatever terms she wants. The restrictions around

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6621 exporting unprocessed logs remain. The fibre must be processed in British Columbia. J. MacPhail: Well, no. I'm labelling it a provincial appurtenancy clause. Is that wrong? Hon. M. de Jong: If by labelling this a provincial appurtenancy clause the member means that the fibre must be processed within British Columbia, then I agree. J. MacPhail: That will come as a great relief to the workers. I'm not sure it will come as a relief to the companies, because the companies can't have it both ways. We'll just see how that works out.

But I will also say that the ability…. I'm sorry. Maybe the minister can introduce his staff. Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. On my left, Bruce McRae; on my right, Richard Grieve. [1515] J. MacPhail: It will be interesting to see how the minister enforces such a provincial appurtenancy clause when there's nothing in the legislation to de- mand thus. Now he says — and he tried to do that in the bill we debated earlier — that the fact that there is a requirement to process the logs in British Columbia….

People called in and said: "But everything else has been stripped away, and there is no way to enforce that." Absolutely none. It's a nice, empty statement. Let me ask about this, then. Here's the tree farm licence number…. Let me just conclude with the Skeena one, then. Skeena isn't operating now. Skeena Cellulose is not operating. Is that correct? Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

The only other point I would make, arising out of the member's com- ment as it relates to log exports, is that that hollow re- gime that I think the member was referring to is pre- cisely the same one she and her government presided over for upwards of a decade. So if it's hollow now, it was hollow then. In fact, we've just debated a bill where we describe how we're tightening up the defini- tions around what qualifies for export. J. MacPhail: I guess the thousands of members that were working up there in the 1990s and aren't now would probably stand up and agree with the minister that nothing's changed.

Balderdash. The unemploy- ment rate is 55 percent. It skyrocketed under this gov- ernment because this government sold the mill to a person without any requirements that he keep the logs in British Columbia and use them — to process them anywhere. So those people who…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: No, they're not the same terms. The minister allowed the new owner of Skeena to export 35 percent of the annual allowable cut, and that's exactly what they're doing. R. Harris: No, it's not. J. MacPhail: That's exactly what they're doing.

Well, maybe the member would like to get into the discussion, because it's what the Minister of Forests said the other day. But feel free to get into the discus- sion and ask, because maybe the Minister of Forests will give you a different answer. But that's exactly what he said. Every… The Chair: Order, members. Let's address the Chair, please. J. MacPhail: …single log being cut now is being exported. It's not up to 35 percent of the annual allow- able cut, but every single log that's cut down is being exported. Get in the game, and explain how it isn't happening.

Maybe he'll actually stand up and repre- sent the 55 percent of people unemployed in his riding. Maybe he will, because they're the people e-mailing and calling me. They're the people e-mailing me and saying: "Will you raise these concerns?" Could the Minister of Forests get on top of his file and understand that he made a big change when he sold Skeena Cellulose — a big change — and that's why the men and women up there are unemployed, and that's why they're so upset with his comments. God forbid that they even begin to describe the repre- sentation of their MLA. Selkirk tree farm licence 55. This is from 1992.

Tim- ber processing: "The licensee will not close or reduce the production of its timber-processing facility at Malakwa for a sustained period of time unless and to the extent that the licensor or his designate exempts the licensee from the requirements of this paragraph." In 1999 it was renewed. What happens to that? Hon. M. de Jong: How is it renewed? J.

MacPhail: "The licensee will process all timber harvested under a cutting permit or road permit or equivalent volumes of timber or wood residue, exclud- ing hog fuel obtained directly or indirectly through a timber-processing facility owned and operated by the licensee and an affiliate of the licensee within the meaning of

section 53(1) of the Forest Act." [1520] Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I'm relying upon what the member is providing, and I have no reason to be- lieve it wouldn't be accurate. Apparently, in 1999 the government of the day decided it made no sense to tie that fibre to a specific processing facility and opted instead to say to the licensee: "You may process that fibre anywhere in British Columbia at a facility you own." J. MacPhail: Right.

6622 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we have gone one step fur- ther. We have said: "That fibre must be processed in British Columbia, but if there's another facility that can make better use of it and you just don't happen to own it, sell it to them." J. MacPhail: Well, how do you answer the workers who work for this company, then? Are they just writ- ten off? Hon. M. de Jong: Let me give the member an ex- ample of a town and an operation where there is an appurtenancy provision. The mill is shut down. No one's working there.

The operators of that mill own another facility. The way they keep that second facility operating is that they take the fibre that is tied to the first one and send it to the second facility. That's how they keep those people working. To apply the specifics of the appurtenancy laws as they agree now would mean that the government could take that fibre away, and now you'd have two mills shut down. Now, that makes a heck of a lot of sense. The better use of that fibre in this case is actually five kilometres down the road at a second facility, and that's where it goes.

It keeps that second facility operat- ing, employing those people. The first facility is still shut down, but if we apply the appurtenancy provi- sions as they exist today in the way that many people would call for, both mills would be shut down. Well, that's stupid. If the fibre is better utilized at the second facility and those people can derive employment and an income as a result, well, then that's probably what should happen. I will tell the member this candidly.

I don't feel par- ticularly competent to decide, from an office in Victo- ria, where the fibre should go between two mills lo- cated five kilometres apart. Maybe that's the difference. J. MacPhail: No. The minister is missing the argu- ment the workers are making. A licensee derives bene- fit from using British Columbia logs, publicly owned logs. The licensee has absolutely no responsibility to use that now, under this minister's legislation, to pro- vide employment within the realm of his or her shop at all. That is true.

The workers aren't even going to get the opportunity to move down the road to the second mill that may operate. There's absolutely no obligation on anyone to those workers on a company basis under this new legislation — absolutely none. There's no ob- ligation to provide anything to the community around which the logs were. That's the difference. It isn't what the minister describes at all, the example he describes. What the minister is going to be giving away is any requirement to provide good jobs to people who have committed to that community and to the community itself.

They're absolutely gone. [1525] I want to read this, on the Selkirk tree farm licence. The minister said: "Oh, that's exactly what we've gone to in 1999 — a provincial appurtenancy." By the way, his legislation is not providing appurtenancy as people knew it at all.

Here's clause No. 15.04: "The licensee will continue to operate and, where applicable, con- struct or expand a timber-processing facility in accor- dance with the proposal made in the application on which the award of the tree farm licence replaced by this licence and any predecessor to that tree farm li- cence was based." It was renewed with the original obligations there in 1999. I read the original obligation, 1992, the Malakwa mill. So what happens to these peo- ple now when the legislation is passed? Hon.

M. de Jong: I think there is a significant dif- ference of opinion about how it is that you ensure we can return to a day when we've got a healthy forest sector. There was a time when politicians exerted a tremendous amount of influence in attempting to de- termine what should happen and where fibre should be allocated. Some of the provisions we are dealing with date back decades and have been utilized with that in mind.

The member has heard my opinion on where that has brought us in the year 2003, given a whole range of changes that have taken place — in the world, in British Columbia — and how they have im- pacted the forest sector in British Columbia. I am going to make the point, without any expecta- tion that this member is going to be convinced, that we are in a better circumstance when we create a frame- work in which the fibre can flow freely within British Columbia.

This scenario — which some would paint — that as a consequence of the passage of this legislation, mills of the sort the member has described are going to disappear off the map, simply isn't so. The point is this: the fibre remains. The harvesting continues. Now, the harvesting might be conducted by someone that doesn't own any processing facility, and we have all kinds of that right now. We've got market loggers; we've got contract loggers. They don't have processing facilities. They don't eat the wood. They sell it. They sell it to processing facilities that have been built and that employ people.

So that separation, that severing of the link between harvesting and processing, is, I understand, something that greatly offends the Leader of the Opposition and some of the people for whom she is asking questions. I can tell her that there is a whole other group of people out there who believe it is precisely what needs to be done: processors and loggers — processors that have been existing out there with virtually no renewable fibre whatsoever. And on balance, I will say to the member, they tend to be the most competitive opera- tors out there because they've had to live by their wits to find that fibre.

I'm not going to convince the member. It's appro- priate for us to have this exchange and hear the views of people that don't share my own. But again, I want to be as forthright as I can about what the objective is here, and it is to dismantle or sever that historic rela- tionship. J. MacPhail: In second reading I predicted there would be one supermill, probably in the lower

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6623 mainland. And that's exactly what's going to happen by this legislation. Based on the minister's comments, I am going to return to ask him to comment on the millworkers' view of why the industry has lost the jobs at the beginning. I'll reread it for him.

But I want to finish the discussion on these two first, especially since the member for Skeena seems so ill-informed about what's happening in his own community. [1530] This tree farm licence 1, which applies to his com- munity, actually has this clause in it: "The licensee will continue to operate and where applicable construct or expand the timber-processing facility in accordance with the proposal made in the application on which the award of the tree farm licence replaced by this licence or any predecessor to that tree farm licence was based." It's an appurtenancy clause.

That's tree farm licence 1, which applies to Skeena. As soon as this government came in, the logs were allowed to be shipped offshore 100 percent — 100 per- cent. That's why there's 55 percent unemployment, and that's why there wasn't 55 percent unemployment until this government came in. Interjection. J. MacPhail: That's why. How dare the member for Skeena try to suggest otherwise? Feel free to get into the debate with those 2,000 or 3,000 people sitting at home because his government got elected. Feel free to jump in. All I'm trying to figure out is this.

Is everything go- ing to be happening like it is now with Skeena Cellulose and the man who bought that licence — that every- body's going to be allowed to do what he's done, which is not create one job anywhere in the province? And what's going to happen to the people at Malakwa? Here's the other clause from the Selkirk tree farm li- cence. It's No. 55 again. We've dealt with No. 1 — that there was an appurtenancy clause until this government took over. Here's this.

It says this for the Selkirk one: "The Licensee will not close or reduce the production of its tim- ber-processing facility at Malakwa for a sustained period of time, unless, and to the extent that the Licensor, or his designate, exempts the Licensee from the requirements of this paragraph." To date, that hasn't occurred. There are people who have worked there for their whole adult lives. What happens to them now? What guarantees do they have? Hon.

M. de Jong: The question the member puts suggests to me that she is of the view that the only rea- son there is a processing facility operating in Malakwa is because of the insertion of a particular clause within the licence agreement. That's fundamentally at the heart of her question — that with the passage of this bill, that mill will disappear. First of all, I disagree fundamentally with that as- sertion. People who are in the processing business are in that business because as long as they can continue to produce a product economically, that's what they want to do. That's the business they're in.

In order to carry out that business they have to be able to acquire fibre. At the end of the day, in order to sustain that business they've got to be able to acquire the fibre, they've got to be able to produce the product they produce, they've got to be able to pay their employees, they've got to be able to maintain their equipment, and they've got to be able to sell their product. When they sell their product, they've got to at least be able to cover the cost of all the previous items. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what's in the licence agreement because it will go away.

There is a litany of evidence of that. If there are people — and there are, and I guess this member is one of them — who think you can ignore that reality by clinging to a set of policies and statutory provisions that ignores the reality of what is taking place out there in communities and within the industry, then that is their view. It is not mine, because I have seen too much evi- dence of what has taken place under that existing regu- latory framework. [1535] J. MacPhail: Could you provide me with that evi- dence, please? Hon. M. de Jong: Unhappily, I can, Mr. Chair.

It is mill closures in 28 communities; it is spiralling unem- ployment levels. I can provide all of that information to the member. I would have thought that at least for the term her government held office, she would have had that etched in her memory. J. MacPhail: I want specifics. How dare the minis- ter stand up and just make a broad statement like that. I want the specifics — where the appurtenancy clause, the social contract, led to a mill closure. Hon.

M. de Jong: Well, in fact, I will provide some specifics to the member about facilities that have shut down and have been subject to appurtenancy provi- sions. If you are obliged to operate a facility — and I know the member doesn't like to hear this — that can no longer be operated efficiently but are compelled to do so by a set of governmentally imposed policies, then at the end of the day the competitiveness, firstly, of that business and, secondly, of that overall industry is go- ing to be compromised, and that's what's happened.

If the member has gone now almost two years without having reviewed the Peter Pearse report — someone, I might add, I have heard no one describe as a partisan…. In fact, the last time he looked in detail at the B.C. forest sector, it was at the behest of an NDP government. If she would take the time to review what he had to say about the impact of these policies — and I'm happy to send the report over to her — then per- haps she wouldn't have had to ask that last question. J. MacPhail: Oh God. What are you trying to test — whether I've read the Pearse report? He said 17 mills

6624 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 would close. I'm asking the minister for his evidence. Dr. Pearse predicted 17 mills would close. I'm asking the minister for his evidence. Dr. Pearse did not relate it to the social contract. He did relate it to changes in timber market pricing, yes. But not to the social contract. There is a fundamental difference of opinion here. This minister stands and advocates for the forest com- panies and the forest companies alone, as does the member for Skeena, as does everybody who sits with the Liberals.

The forest companies hurrah, and they're fine if there's one supermill in Vancouver. Who knows? It may be in my riding. How does that help the mem- bers' constituents from Prince Rupert or the Kootenays or Houston, Quesnel, Williams Lake or Comox? Maybe East Vancouver will rule. But my point here, on behalf of the working people of the province, is that there was a social contract be- tween the use of a publicly owned resource and the profits of the forest company, and that's gone now. That's being ripped up by clause 2 because the minister says that social contract impeded the profits of the in- dustry.

That's what he said. [1540] In fact, he couldn't care less how many mills move around, how many people lose their jobs. He told me that the other day when I asked him about the Canfor consolidation and the closure of mills. His bureaucrats didn't know anything about it; he didn't know any- thing about it. He didn't know that there were going to be a couple of hundred people laid off — net — be- cause he doesn't care, because Canfor is still happy. But the communities and the workers are left behind, abandoned.

I'm asking the minister for evidence that the social contract impeded the forest companies' abil- ity to be profitable. We will get into specific questions later on. I opened up my comments with a millworker's analysis that said the job loss over the years had to do with corporate downsizing, technology replacing workers, consolidation of the industry, contracting out of maintenance, increasing log exports, product substi- tution and a lack of innovation moving up the value chain — not the social contract. I didn't ask the minister for a reply. Maybe he could reply. He's watching; the millworker is watching. Hon.

M. de Jong: If I'm going to provide an answer directly, I may have to ask the member to re-put the question to me. J. MacPhail: This millworker says that this gov- ernment is accusing the social contract — the social contract being appurtenancy, cut control, notice of mill closure — as being the villain in the downturn of the industry, the loss of jobs. I asked the minister for evi- d e n c e o f t h a t , a n d h e s a i d h e ' d g e t i t f o r m e . H e r e - ferred to the Pearse report, and that is not the link the Pearse report makes. This millworker is saying it is not those factors.

These are the factors that led to it. The 13,000 jobs lost had to do with corporate downsizing, technology replacing workers, consolidation of the industry, con- tracting out of maintenance, increasing log exports, product substitution, a lack of innovation moving up the value chain. Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, what I'm saying is a cou- ple of things. First of all, when you impede any business's oppor- tunity to respond and adjust to significantly changed circumstances — surely, no one is suggesting that this industry hasn't been confronted by some changed cir- cumstances — that is a recipe for disaster.

Is it the only feature at all? Is it the only feature that has contributed to the decline of this industry? I don't think so. I think the fact that we have to compete now with products supplied by parts of the world we never had to compete with has had an impact. I think market conditions have had an impact. I think decisions that have been made around land use have had an impact. I think our need to get on with resolving first nations issues has had an im- pact. I think all of these things have had an impact.

It is interesting, when I consider that the decline the member referred to in her question in fact began to accelerate at the very time the previous government actually ratcheted up the social contract, because that's what the jobs and timber accord was. It was an amplifi- cation of that very strategy.

Ironically, all of those ill effects, all of those negative consequences that the member has referred to, began to occur and accelerate within a regime that actually represented an enhanced social contract. [1545] So is it the only thing that has contributed to our forest sector's inability to perform at levels we all want it to perform at? No. But it has, in my view, surely con- tributed to our forest sector's inability to perform at levels we all want it to. J. MacPhail: Boy, everybody is at fault except the forest companies' management themselves, according to this minister — everybody.

He continues to rail about the previous administration. Whatever. He won the election, and things have gotten in a decline like we've never seen before in the industry. I guess maybe, based on his logic, we can only blame the Liberal gov- ernment for the decline. I put questions to him from a millworker that were absolutely legitimate about whether he has looked into the corporate restructuring, about the changes that have occurred in the industry. Rather than attack the social contract, accept that as the changes that have o c c u r r e d .

N o , w h a t t h i s m i n i s t e r d o e s i s t r y t o b l a m e politicians of the past and a horrible social contract that now, with its removal, will attack the workers and the communities. He's willing to leave the corporate enti- ties, who perhaps themselves have been responsible for the job losses, completely off the hook — leave them completely off the hook. Of course, we don't have an answer for the people w h o w o r k a t t h e m i l l a t M a l a k w a . W e j u s t s i m p l y d o n ' t have an answer. If the day this legislation passes that em-

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6625 ployer decides to leave town, knowing that this contract they were under is now null and void, I guess the workers will just have to say: "Oh well, whatever. Thank goodness that the company is profitable. We've lost our jobs. Our communities lost the jobs, but the company's fine." By the way, these are appurtenancy agreements, and they do exist. I'm happy to be able to bring them to the attention of the minister, because he said that they didn't exist. Here's one: Boundary Creek forest man- agement licence No. 8, original 1951.

"This licence is given for the maintenance of a manufacturing plant or plants capable of utilizing subject as hereinafter provided not less than 1.5 million cubic feet of wood per year, provided also the said manufacturing plant or plants shall be maintained in operation on the licensed area or within a distance of one mile of the highway between the town of Kettle Valley on the west and the town of Eholt on the east.

"This licence shall be appurtenant to the licensee's mill or plant as provided in clause 2 hereof, and not less than 80 percent of the annual or periodic saw log cut shall be processed in the licensee's mill or plant unless permission in writing is given by the minister to process less than 80 percent. Such permission, if given, shall not extend to a period of more than one year under any permit" — 1981. It was renewed in 1980, and it was added that they had to give not less than three months' notice if there was going to be any reduction in capacity of timber, but pursuant to the original licence.

Tree farm licence renewed, 1995. "The licensee will process all timber harvested under a cutting permit or a road permit or equivalent volumes through a timber processing facil- ity (

a) owned or operated by the licensee, (

b) equipped to carry out debarking and chipping." It's got clause 16.04, standard back in those days: "The licensee will continue to operate and, where ap- plicable, construct or expand a timber-processing facil- ity in accordance with the proposal made in the appli- cation on which the award of the tree farm licence re- placed by this licence or any predecessor to the tree farm licence was based." [1550] What happens to those people? I'm sorry. It was renewed again in 2000 — exactly the same. Hon.

M. de Jong: I'm probably better equipped to answer the question if I either obtain or receive from the member a copy of the 2000 renewal. J. MacPhail: I'll read it word for word. Tree farm licence No. 5, renewed March 1, 2000, timber process- ing. "The licensee will process all timber harvested under a cutting permit or road permit, or equivalent volumes of timber or wood residue excluding hog fuel, obtained directly or indirectly, through a timber-processing facility owned or operated by the licensee or an affiliate of the licensee within the meaning of

section 53(1) of the Forest Act, unless the minister exempts the licensee in whole or in part from the requirements of this paragraph. "15.02. If the licensee (

a) intends to close a timber- processing facility or reduce its production or (

b) has reason to believe that an affiliate of the licensee within the meaning of

section 53 of the Forest Act intends to close a timber-processing facility or reduce its production for a period of longer than 90 days, the licensee will give the minister at least three months notice prior to the closure or reduction. "15.03. If (

a) the licensee or (

b) an affiliate of the licensee within the meaning of

section 53 of the Forest Act closes a timber processing facility or reduces its production for a period of longer than 90 days, the licensee will, on request of the minister, provide information regarding the volume of Crown timber processed through the timber processing facility during the 24-month period immediately preceding the closure or reduction in production level. "15.04. The licensee will continue to operate and, where applicable, construct or expand a timber processing facility in accordance with (

a) the proposal made in the application on which the award of the tree farm licence replaced by this licence or any predecessor to that tree farm licence was based and (

b) the revisions, if any, to that proposal." Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the member for reading it in its entirety. To the extent that one could argue that a mill-specific appurtenancy provision exists there — and by virtue of the final clause, I think some- one could argue that, although it tends to fly in the face of the earlier part of the document — that obligation will no longer exist if this legislation passes. J. MacPhail: What happens to the people who work there? Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing, I expect. J. MacPhail: What if the company wants to close the mill? Can they do it overnight?

What happens to the workers who work in the mill, if the company closes operations? Hon. M. de Jong: I expect that they would be enti- tled to either the severance provisions or other provi- sions of the contract that guides their relationship with their employer. J. MacPhail: I guess we have people relying either on employment standards, if they're non-union, and, if they're union, their collective agreement. The company gets the trees and the profit. The community gets noth- ing, and the workers get nothing.

The reason I'm reading these into the record is be- cause the minister said, I think, during our debate on 27 that there weren't appurtenancy agreements left. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Well, we can certainly check. The min- ister said there were none left, and when I brought two to his attention, they said: "Oh no, those aren't appur- tenancy agreements. They arose out of negotiations from getting out of appurtenancy." [1555] Mackenzie-Cariboo forest management licence No. 5. Again, it was established in the 1950s. It says: "The

6626 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 forest management licence may be referred to as the Mackenzie-Cariboo forest management licence No. 5.

This licence is given for the maintenance of manufac- turing or plants capable of utilizing subject as hereinaf- ter provided, not less than 1.5 million cubic feet of wood per year, provided also the said manufacturing plant or plants shall be maintained in operation within a radius of five miles of the town of Quesnel or on the licence area or within ten miles of the boundary of the licence." It was renewed in 1980 and 1995, and again it was renewed in 2000 — exactly the same language as I just read into the record for Boundary Creek. [H. Long in the chair.] Tell me, Mr. Chair.

I have had dozens of tree farm licences. I'm wondering whether the minister can tell me how many such agreements that I just read into the record apply to how many tree farm licences, because we're ending these agreements. What we're doing right now is debating the ripping up, the declaring null and void of these contracts. I have tree farm licence 1; we've already dealt with that. We've dealt with 5, we've dealt with 8, and we've dealt with 55.

So here are the ones that are left: 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, tree farm licence 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, tree farm licence 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, tree farm licence 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, tree farm licence 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 56 and 57. Hon. M. de Jong: The information I have indicates that with respect to major replaceable licences, and by that I am including both TFLs and forest licences that carry a combined AAC of about just under 51 million cubic metres, approximately 2.1 million cubic metres have mill-specific appurtenancy clauses. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, could he just repeat the last part of that, please? Hon.

M. de Jong: To the member, the last figure I gave was approximately 2.1 million cubic metres. K. Manhas: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members K. Manhas: I have the pleasure of introducing to this House 24 kids from Maple Creek Middle School in Port Coquitlam. They are students from the Tri-Cities of Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody, and they're here with 23 kids visiting from their twin school of Miramichi Rural School in New Brunswick. They've been twinned together as part of a YMCA youth ex- change program.

Those of you who have a little bit of knowledge of New Brunswick politics will recognize that Miramichi was the home riding of the past Pre- mier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna. Miramichi is a school of 75 kids from kindergarten to grade 8, and 23 of them are here visiting today. I'd like to make a welcome to Principal Bill Campbell from their school and to Laurel Whatley from Maple Creek Middle School. I'd also like to recognize the parents who have done a lot of work to pull this together.

It's been, specifically, Jane Gibbons and Monica Foster who have worked tremendously hard to organize these trips and organize all the activities. I'd like to thank both of the communities who fundraised to host each other through things like clothing drives and spaghetti nights and other innovative fundraisers.

So thanks to work of the parents and students and their communi- ties and the generosity of those communities, all these students have the ability to have this wonderful ex- perience. [1600] Would the House and all the members please wel- come the students from the Tri-Cities and please make the students from Miramichi, New Brunswick, very welcome. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: I want to concentrate on, as an exam- ple, the Boundary Creek forest management licence, licence 8, because I think we're finding out very quickly that this document — the minute this legislation is passed — is ripped up.

It's tossed aside; it's outlawed. So I want to work on what the effect of that is. The minister makes the argument that once this is gone, the forest companies can take what I would call the easy way out. They can leave the communities, abandon the communities, and take the fibre with them. There's no longer any obligation at all on the part of anybody to extract from the companies an effort to work within the community to obtain efficiencies. What happens to the mills attached to TFL 8 when this legislation arrives? Does he know what mills are going to shut down? Hon.

M. de Jong: The question suggests that a mill in a particular area is destined for closure, and I'm not certain that is correct. J. MacPhail: Now, this TFL 8 has 1.5 million cubic f e e t o f w o o d p e r y e a r a t t a c h e d t o i t . W e l l , n o . T h e original one was 1.5 million cubic feet. The minister says there's only…. I'm sorry. Did you say there's only 2.1 million cubic metres of wood tied to appurtenancy clauses? Is that what you said? Hon. M. de Jong: The data I have is that licences with enforceable mill-specific appurtenancy provisions capture just over 2.1 million cubic metres of fibre. J.

MacPhail: Well, I've already tabled appurtenancy arrangements that I think exceed that by quite a bit, so I'm not sure where the minister is getting his figures. This one alone is 1.5 million cubic feet. I understand that, but I just tabled the other one too. The Mackenzie- Cariboo is exactly the same amount, and so are a cou-

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6627 ple of the others that I tabled. I think the minister is underestimating the importance. Well, anyway, let's carry on with just the forest management licence 8.

In it, clause 16.04 says: "The licensee will continue to operate and, where applicable, construct or expand a timber-processing facility in ac- cordance with the proposal made in the application on which the award of the tree farm licence, replaced by this licence or any predecessor to that tree farm licence, was based." The original one was that you had to be within a certain geographic area: one mile of the high- way between the town of Kettle Valley on the west and the town of Eholt on the east.

We may look on this as old-fashioned and charming, but it's a legal document. [1605] Does the minister have any information about what mills are currently operating in TFL 8? Surely, with the ripping up of a contract, a legally binding contract, the minister would understand the implication or know the effects of the implication of making that contract null and void. Hon. M. de Jong: I can certainly obtain the informa- tion as it relates specifically to the TFL.

I'm going to suggest to the member that in terms of assessing the impact of the legislation, whether one is for it or against it, the contract is not null and void. The legisla- tion does — and in particular the

section the member referred to earlier, the

section coming up later in the legislation — impact a specific clause of some of those agreements, but the agreements are not null and void. J. MacPhail: Well, then, have there been discus- sions about, for instance, the Aspen planer mill in Mer- ritt? Is it part of the TFL? Riverside mills, Kelowna, Princeton — part of the TFL? They are operating in TFL 8, and they will be affected by the tearing up of this contract. I can't see anything in the legislation that does anything except make this contract null and void.

Or else perhaps the minister could tell me what discus- sions his ministry has had, according to this contract, about closures. Hon. M. de Jong: I know the member is not pur- posely trying to confuse. My information is that the mills involved in TFL 8 are located at Midway and Grand Forks. The companies she has referred to — again, my information is that they are not involved. J. MacPhail: Have there been any discussions about the future of those mills? Hon.

M. de Jong: I happened, on a recent trip through Grand Forks, to visit one of those facilities, and the very short conversation I had related to their desire to access more fibre so that they could continue healthy operations. J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that to the best of his knowledge, there will be no change as a result of this legislation in the TFL No. 8 mills? Hon. M. de Jong: With respect….

Again, I am rely- ing on information I haven't verified, but based on the discussion we've had thus far, I'm aware of no informa- tion and have had no indication that operations would alter or change as a result of the passage of this legisla- tion. J. MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. I was asked to ask that question specifically by the people operating in TFL 8, so we'll see. I would like a list of the TFLs that have enforceable appurtenancy contracts, please, mak- ing up the 2.1 million cubic metres. Hon. M. de Jong: I can obtain a list for the member and will do so. J.

MacPhail: Okay, I would appreciate that. Clearly, if the minister has come up with a figure of 2.1 million, the list must be readily available. I would appreciate that before we conclude the debate on this legislation. That gives them the weekend to do that. Interjection. [1610] J. MacPhail: That's exactly…. No, no, you've got plenty of time, believe you me, through you, Mr. Chair — plenty of time. On clause 2. I said that this clause eliminates issues the minister must consider in awarding a forest licence. I'll re-read those into the record, because I have some questions based on that.

Prior to this bill they would have had to consider: to create or maintain employment opportunities or other social benefits; manage and utilize Crown timber; further the development objectives of the government; meet the objectives of the government in respect of environmental quality and management of water, fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage resources; and contribute to government revenues. Those have been removed, but they still have to be considered. There's nothing mandatory about it, but the minister will consider them.

If that's still in there, I assume there must be some validity or necessity to the consideration. So why are they no longer to be part of the licence? Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I think I would like to offer in response to the member is that I'm not sure if I either heard her incorrectly or she is, perhaps, slightly mistaken. The original legislative provisions that are being dealt with here provided the ability for the Crown to invite applications built around certain criteria, and if the invitation….

The way those sections worked is that if the Crown availed itself of that opportunity and listed those various items as criteria for consideration, then the act logically required that the decision-maker must take those issues into account. It did not compel the Crown to include, in every instance, those criteria. But if it did, in advertising the opportunity, then they had to be weighed in terms of the decision that followed. The member will know, again, that the direction we are in-

6628 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 tending to move to is access to timber built around a competitive bid model, and that is ultimately the model that we intend to operate under. J. MacPhail: All of those discussions were carried out under the auspices of the legislation, though. I want to ask specifics about this. If you look at 14(

f) of the current Forest Act, it refers back to 13(4), which requires those factors to be evaluated, including its potential for each application. Interjection. [1615] J. MacPhail: Oh. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah, if they're advertised, except that these TFLs have been around for a long time. Perhaps the minister could explain the distinction. Hon. M. de Jong: I wasn't intending to interrupt the member. The distinction I was endeavouring to make earlier and just a moment ago was that each offering around access to timber, each licence opportunity, did not necessarily include all of these criteria.

It was an option available to the Crown. If it did form a part of the tender criteria, then the person making the decision around the various bids had to assess those bids taking those criteria into account. I actually sought some information and haven't received conclusive information, but it has been many, many years since a new licence opportunity has been offered on the basis of the terms set out in 13 and 14. J. MacPhail: Well, I have no idea whether that's the case.

I have all of my evidence here that I'm giving to the minister that does include appurtenancy, for in- stance, which arises right out of these clauses. I keep asking the minister for the evidence he has on this mat- ter, and I await it. So is the minister saying these objectives are still important? Hon. M. de Jong: What I'm saying and acknow- ledging is that in the future, timber will be awarded on a purely competitive basis. J. MacPhail: Is there nothing in this legislation that says the minister must consider these objectives? Are they gone completely?

I thought I read the legislation to say that the minister must still consider these factors. Hon. M. de Jong: I want to be as forthright as I can with the member. There are criteria listed there. One of them relates to the return to the taxpayer via govern- ment revenues. We've indicated pretty clearly that that is going to be the determining characteristic. In subse- quent legislation that will be made even clearer. J. MacPhail: Will there be any consideration at all about development objectives of the government? Is it just revenue-based? [1620] Hon.

M. de Jong: With these exceptions, the an- swer to the member's question is yes. Those exceptions would be the continued partition in favour of the value-added sector that will exist within the timber sale program, the expanded community forest program and the efforts we are making with respect to better incor- porating and involving first nations in the forest econ- omy. With those exceptions, though, it will be a system built around the competitive bid process. J. MacPhail: I ' m s o r r y . I d i d n ' t f o o t n o t e m y n o t e s here.

I thought there was something in here that said that the government will consider social objectives. Am I misreading it? My apologies, Mr. Chair. I don't have it footnoted. Hon. M. de Jong: If it helps the member, I think she might be referring to (4)(

a) within the section. As I've indicated earlier, by virtue of subsequent legislation, it will be made clear that the determining characteristic is price, with the exceptions that I referred to a few mo- ments ago. J. MacPhail: Where is it — or is it nowhere — that employment objectives are talked about at all with the use of the public land? I noted the minister said that he'd been up in the TFL and that he'd been talking to people and that he was satisfied that it didn't look like anybody was going to be shut down.

He basically has argued vociferously today about why I would be so suspicious to think that any mill would shut down. Is he out there discussing employment objectives? What other TFLs has he gone into, to discuss employ- ment objectives? Hon. M. de Jong: Constructively, to the member, I think we're talking about TSAs as opposed to TFLs when we talk about getting out in the various areas. Yeah, we're talking about creating a future and employment.

The difference is, of course, that we are going to rely to a greater extent than we have in the past on the ingenuity and entrepreneurial drive of those involved in the forest sector and remove some of the impediments that have been placed in their path and existed in their path of late. I'm not going to be shy about acknowledging to the member right upfront. If anyone is looking in this legislation for the equivalent of a timber-for-jobs provision, they're not going to find it. That's a very different way of managing the re- source.

A previous government in another time said: "Your access to the resource that government controls is go- ing to be contingent upon you promising the govern- m e n t t o d o c e r t a i n t h i n g s . " I t d i d n ' t w o r k . W h a t h a p - pened after the fact, when these bids would come in, is that one person would say: "I'm going to create 30 jobs." Another person would say: "I'm going to create 50 jobs." Someone else said: "I'm going to create 75 j o b s . " T h e c o n t r a c t w e n t t o t h e p e r s o n t h a t s a i d : " I ' m going to create 75 jobs."

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6629 Three years later it turns out they only created 20 jobs. The two people that had other bids feel ripped off because the person didn't fulfil the obligation, and the govern- ment's hands are tied because if you take the timber back, the 20 jobs that the person did produce go down the toilet. That is a strategy for how you manage the public resource. I happen to think it is an unworkable one. I happen to think it is an unfair one, but others disagree.

I hope no one is going to suggest that I am, again, try- ing to hide the fact that specific references that say to people: "Your access to the timber is tied to your ability to convince the government that you're going to pro- duce X number of jobs…." Those provisions don't exist in this legislation, and to the extent that they have ex- isted, they don't exist any longer. [1625] J. MacPhail: Well, then, is the government aware of any information about what changes in employment will occur as a result of this legislation? I mean, we do have the Pearse report.

This minister, when he was in opposition, used to talk about 13 mill closures. The Pearse report talks about 17 mill closures. I guess when the Premier loves to talk about his only indicator of success in this econ- omy being the creation of jobs, it's somebody else that gives him that information. What information does the minister have about employment changes as a result of this legislation, or does he not care? Hon.

M. de Jong: In the long term, we believe this industry is going to revitalize itself and that there are going to be additional job opportunities — perhaps different opportunities than what have historically existed, and opportunities in the value-added sector. They may not be opportunities of the historical variety and primary breakdown facilities, but we think that through a diversified fibre flow and an expansion of the opportunities available for participants to get in- volved in forestry, those employment levels are going to return to where they once were. That's the objective.

That's why one embarks upon an exercise like this. J. MacPhail: My God. Talk about having his head buried in the sand. The only information recently about consolidation around mills is loss of jobs. The only effect of mills consolidating and wishing to do so…. I mean, I heard David Emerson say this, I hear Jimmy Pattison say it, and I used to hear Ike Barber say it — he's retired — that we need this freedom so that we can "consolidate." Of course, consolidate is a fancy word for job loss. Let me ask the minister: does he have evidence of job creation as a result of this?

Are there some studies or projections that he's got? Here's the crux of why I'm asking these questions. If there's no jobs and timber accord, what do we get for these changes? What do the citizens of British Columbia get in exchange for giving their publicly owned resource to the timber companies, to the forest companies? I asked the minister for the stumpage revenue pro- jections. I don't have those. Let's have some evidence of the benefits to British Columbians and not just the benefit to the forest companies. Hon.

M. de Jong: It is an interesting proposition to suggest that the forest is being given to certain major licensees as we debate legislation that is taking away 20 percent of their licence entitlement. Again, I am baffled by the assertion that as part of a package that actually takes away 20 percent of their timber-cutting rights and redistributes it to community groups, to first nations, to smaller operators, that is — for this member, appar- ently — the equivalent of giving it to those major licen- sees. That's the first observation I would make in re- spect of the member's submission. The second is this.

I can't help, when I listen to her, but think of that antiquated view of forestry that she appears to embrace. Forestry for her represents nothing more than a primary breakdown mill. Drive up the Island. Look at them sitting there empty. If that is your notion of measuring success in forestry, how many people are employed in a mill that saws 2-by-4s? [1630] Well, then, I guess you might conclude that this isn't your preferred package. But that's not my notion of forestry in British Columbia. My notion of forestry is creating a structure that will allow for the maximizing of the value of the timber.

If that means sending a par- ticular type of fibre to another value-added facility…. You know, I've got a facility in Abbotsford of all places — the second- or third-largest employer with almost 400 employees. It's a forestry company. It makes doors and windows. No one even knows it's there. Those people m ake goo d mo ney. T hey have ski lls. They employ the latest in technology. But you know what? They don't make 2-by-4s. If the measure of suc- cess is how many people in British Columbia are saw- ing 2-by-4s, well, then that's the member's measure. It is not necessarily mine.

Indeed, technology has had an impact on the num- bers of employees it takes to produce that product. No one in their right mind would deny that. Do we wring our hands and ask ourselves how to insulate ourselves from that? We tried that in the past. I don't think it's worked. I think what we need to do is get on with cre- ating a structure that will foster some of those other opportunities that are out there. But that's me. J. MacPhail: Is that the discussion the minister had with the IWA for the last year and a half? The Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the minister doesn't want to answer that question. He likes to get up and sort of rant and rave about something that isn't even what we're discussing. Absolutely nothing. Then he refuses to answer the question about the very people who are going to be affected by this. All I'm asking the minister is: what is British Co- lumbia getting for this breaking of the social contract? Not jobs. Fair enough. We have no idea what the

6630 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 stumpage revenue is going to be. The minister can't provide that. He's had a few days to do that and hasn't been able to. So all I'm asking is: what do we get? What do Brit- ish Columbians get for giving this publicly owned re- source to companies? It's publicly owned. The minister stands up and tells some story about Doorland, which we all know about. Hon. M. de Jong: It's not Doorland. Don't make accusations — okay? J. MacPhail: Oh, okay. I love Doorland. Interjection. The Chair: Order. J. MacPhail: I love Doorland. The Chair: Order. J.

MacPhail: I don't know what the minister's get- ting so upset about. The Chair: I think we should address the Chair, please. J. MacPhail: Well, put the company on record. I don't know what he's getting so upset about, Mr. Chair. Doorland is in his riding. It's a very successful com- p a n y . I t ' s e x a c t l y a s h e d e s c r i b e d . G o o d o n t h e m . I mean, stand up and tell it. Hon. M. de Jong: You don't like them. J. MacPhail: What I don't like are the horrendous implications for working people in this province that are going to occur because of this gover

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0508pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0508pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	eac79a6385b39bfc61552ac1933bffc8eb36676d

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