Hansard -- Tuesday, May 6, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 15, No. 4 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6523

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6523
	Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Hon. S. Hagen Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Hon. S. Hagen

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6524
	Economic development in Delta South area V. Roddick Prevention of sex crimes against children B. Belsey Mental health funding and services L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions		6525
	Delivery of services for children and families J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg Respite care beds at St. Paul's Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen B.C. Liberal Party fundraising letter P. Nettleton Hon. G. Collins Mental health and addiction information plan I. Chong Hon. G. Cheema

Second Reading of Bills		6528
	Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) (continued) Hon. M. de Jong P. Nettleton M. Hunter J. MacPhail J. Kwan P. Sahota P. Bell R. Harris

Committee of the Whole House		6550
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6551
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. A guest in the gallery today is Mr. Harry Lewis, a teacher from Reynolds Secondary School. Mr. Lewis is in charge of the flexible studies program at Reynolds by which the Victoria school district 61 has, for many years, provided students to work as Pages for the Legislative Assembly.

Harry is here to observe the work his students are doing on our behalf. I'm sure members will agree that we have received excellent service from Reynolds Secondary School. Please welcome Harry Lewis.

S. Orr: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you mentioned Harry Lewis. I actually just wanted to welcome Harry back from Australia, where he was teaching for a while. He was president of the Tillicum-Gorge ratepayers association and a very active member of the community. Welcome back, Harry, and we'll speak to you soon.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today the mayor of the fifth-largest city in British Columbia: from the city of Abbotsford, Mayor Mary Reeves. With her today is Mr. Gary Guthrie, the city manager. I ask the House to please make them both welcome.

J. Kwan: I have the great opportunity to introduce the two most significant people, two most significant women, in my life, who are in the precincts today. Before I do that, if you would indulge me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone in this House — in fact, everyone who has sent Cee-Yan and my family well wishes and warm thoughts for her arrival.

One minister actually mentioned that 25 hours of labour is worse than the estimates process. For the opposition caucus, let me tell you, it is actually worse than the 24-hour emergency debates that this government would like to keep bringing on. There's only one difference, though. The end result is much more gratifying. Cee-Yan is wonderful. She is in the precincts today with my mother, downstairs in my office. Would the House please make welcome the two most significant women in my life.

Hon. C. Hansen: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 21 grade 10 students from St. George's Secondary School in Vancouver. They're here with their teachers, Mr. Stephen Ziff and Mr. Neil Piller. Will the House please make them all very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It must be a day for students to visit us here in the precincts. I'm very proud that I have 11 students from King George high school in my constituency who are here visiting the Legislature. They're joined by Susan Gerofsky, who is their teacher, and Teresa Goode and Janet Collette, who are parents. These students are part of the city school program that's offered at King George high school to students from around the city of Vancouver as an alternative program, an enriched program, for kids that really do excel. I'm very proud to have them here, so would the House please make them all feel welcome.

R. Stewart: Today visiting the Legislature is the Bethany Chorale from Bethany College in Saskatchewan. I had the immense pleasure, along with other members, staff and visitors, to hear the majestic voices of this chorale raised in song over the noon hour in the legislative rotunda. They are on a tour of various B.C. communities and will be performing this evening in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transmission Corporation Act.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that Bill 39, Transmission Corporation Act, be read a first time now.

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

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

Creating this new publicly owned corporation helps achieve our energy plan goal of keeping electricity rates low by ensuring that ratepayers continue to benefit from electricity trade, and it will ensure that we continue to receive trade revenues to help pay for the

The Transmission Corporation Act will encourage private sector investment in new generation and energy industry growth. Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps secure British Columbia's low-cost energy advantage to build on our strengths and helps revitalize the economy and create jobs.

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

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 40, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003. These amendments modernize the Utilities Commission Act and are a positive step forward in implementing the province's new energy plan, a plan that will deliver low electricity prices, a secure and reliable supply of energy, more private sector opportunities and environmental responsibility.

The act will go a long way in ensuring efficient regulations of B.C. utilities, which is necessary to ensure that public utilities deliver low-cost energy and are able to reliably serve domestic needs. These amendments will also streamline the existing regulations.

Bill 40 will facilitate the development of domestic energy sources. Electricity distributors are required to acquire a new supply on a least-cost basis, with regulatory oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The act has been amended to encourage utility investment that supports environmentally sustainable responsibility through conservation and energy efficiency. The act modernizes British Columbia's regulatory structure, streamlines regulations and introduces a framework for customer protection and choice.

These legislative changes will benefit customers. By securing a low-cost energy advantage, British Columbia can build on its strengths to help revitalize the economy and create jobs through private sector participation. The bill I'm introducing today demonstrates our government's commitment to strengthen the British Columbia Utilities Commission to benefit all British Columbians.

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

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

V. Roddick: Delta South is the constituency through which everyone travels to get where they're going. As a result, our community is faced with making plans and decisions which will impact our neighbourhoods forever.

It is imperative that everyone work together — volunteer community groups, business associations, industrial parks and all three levels of government. Growing and building a stronger community can only be achieved by working together positively.

There are excellent business opportunities which will gain the services and quality of life that we strive for and of which we can be proud. Here are just a few of those opportunities available to Delta: the B.C. Ferry terminal improvement plans; Vancouver Port Corporation, Roberts Bank expansion; Tsawwassen first nations treaty process and economic development; Ladner fishing harbour; agriculture, Delta's largest single industry; Delta municipal bylaws; Boundary Bay Airport; and, knitting all of this together, a traffic infrastructure absolutely second to none.

Individual, neighbourhood, community and provincial thinking caps must be put on in order to develop and ensure locally designed solutions. I will continue to work with the community and to bring ideas forward to this Legislature and to this government. As our community is doing with Delta Hospital, if we work together positively and with determination, we can achieve great things. United, we will succeed.

B. Belsey: I rise today to talk about a new advocacy group in Prince Rupert, the Concerned Citizens Against Sex Crimes to Children, or CCASCC. This group of ordinary community-minded citizens is working to find solutions to protect children from sexual exploitation.

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

only by working together that we can protect children from these social problems. Too often the people who commit these crimes have been victims themselves as children, and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken.

Two weeks ago I met with the co-founder of CCASCC in my constituency office, where we discussed the important role citizens and governments play in protecting vulnerable children. I am looking forward to working with the organization and know, through constructive dialogue with Concerned Citizens Against Sex Crimes to Children, that our efforts will benefit those most in need.

In closing, let me say the success in eliminating the exploitation of children in this or any other community will be measured by the presence of justice and the absence of fear.

L. Mayencourt: A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a West End Neighbours in Action meeting on mental health services in our community. I wanted to take a few moments, since this is Mental Health Week, to highlight some of the achievements of the government in dealing with this important issue.

In the past year our government provided $15 million to strengthen community mental health services, and this year we added another $18 million to our health plan commitment. Our government has committed $138 million to upgrade facilities and replace the aging Riverview facility in Coquitlam. As part of that project, we've already opened facilities in Coquitlam, Prince George, Saanich and Kamloops — with more to come in the next few years.

For the first time in B.C. history, we have put mental health together with addiction services, integrating those programs to serve patients in British Columbia more effectively. The government has released several best-practices documents to improve mental health planning, including peer support and support for families, and our Premier announced several programs to deal with depression strategies and anxiety disorders.

The government released Canada's first comprehensive child and youth mental health plan recently. This plan will go a long way to building a better capacity of services to improve the lives of young people that live with mental illness.

On Sunday the Minister of State for Mental Health announced the development of the B.C. partners for mental health and addictions information. By prudent management of all ministries, we are providing more dollars towards mental health services in this province than ever before. We are strengthening community services, we are creating networks of care, we are building modern and updated facilities, and we are implementing best practices — all in the interest of serving this vulnerable group of British Columbia citizens.

J. MacPhail: My questions follow up from the statement from the member for North Coast.

The Minister of Children and Family Development has spent two years working on a scheme to devolve child protection to regional governing authorities, but that plan, as we're learning every day, is quickly spinning out of control. Service providers, concerned parents and the outgoing children's commissioner have been saying for months, along with the opposition, that it's impossible to implement a 23 percent budget cut as part of this restructuring scheme. The opposition has learned that the minister's own interim authorities are balking at the cuts, refusing to implement the orders. The auditor general is investigating. As of yesterday we received a memo from the service providers and advocates stating that the ministry didn't meet its budget last year, that it's going to have to redo the budget and that the legislation is on hold. That's as of today.

Can the minister explain why funding for kids at risk is being cut as his grand plans for a new child protection regime in B.C. unravel?

Hon. G. Hogg: The ministry did meet its budget last year — in fact, met it and provided funds to build on top of that in a number of areas. The ministry is looking at and continues to look at the service plan and the targets that we have within it. There are significant challenges in terms of the service delivery model and the 23 percent cut, which the member made reference to.

We have been involved in the most extensive consultative process that this ministry — and, in fact, this government — has ever seen with respect to provision of social services. People across this province have been active participants in that. We met last weekend with a number of the chairs of the planning committees across this province, and they have — to a person, aboriginal and non-aboriginal — committed to the targets we have set in terms of the funding models that we're working toward. We are continuing to go review those.

We've learned a lot in the past two years. We've learned a lot about what we have inherited from the past government and the focus and direction we have to go. We are still going forward in a very positive way. We will meet those budget targets. We will be able to have a plan that services and responds to the needs of communities in a much more proactive way and that is responsive to the nuances of the needs of various communities in this province.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister's right on one fact. Yes, his ministry officials did meet with service provid-

ers last weekend. Here's what his officials told them. The Ministry of Children and Family Development did not meet its budget targets for '02-03 because the reductions of the number of children in care did not meet the targets set by the government. Maybe they made their budget cuts, but they didn't get their service cuts. Here's why: there are enough children who need child protection, and therefore they couldn't make their targeted cuts.

The entire scheme set up by this government was based on the premise that communities could provide the same child protection services for 20 percent less with this new regional model. That's the argument the minister has used over and over again when he's confronted with how he can achieve his budget cuts.

Well, the Finance minister has put this project on hold because of financial concerns, so that argument's gone. This minister is going to have to come clean and admit, finally, that a 23 percent budget cut in his ministry means lost services and less protection for kids at risk — the very people the member for North Coast is now advocating on behalf of.

Will the minister finally stand up and tell us what services will be gone because his reorganization of protection in kids services is in complete disarray? Who is going to be further at risk now?

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, this government's priority has been, is and will continue to be the health and safety of children within this province. Secondly, there was an increase of 60 percent in terms of the number of children that came into the care of the state in this province over the past eight years — a 60 percent increase, well above the national average of the number of children in care.

Every bit of good social work practice tells us that the best way we can support children is within the context of their families, their extended families and the community — every bit of research. In fact, perhaps ironically — without using any props — I have research that supports that, which has been done around the world.

We are moving in a very progressive way to a community-based response model, which will allow us to respond more effectively to the nuances and needs within the context of the community and provide protection within that context. That's the direction and the way that all of the best evidence tells us we should be going, and that's the direction and the focus that this government has taken.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister's own officials aren't telling him what's going on. Here's the other news that's revealed in this e-mail. The legislation to put in place the new authorities has been delayed for all of the authorities, including the provincial community board, the regional authorities and the aboriginal authorities — delayed. Here's what's that says.

Now, the minister was forced to admit in estimates debate that he spent $25 million in transition funding for this new scheme that's now delayed — $25 million that could have gone to protect children at risk and support child and family development programs. What does the minister have to show for it? Delay, having to redo his budget, not meeting his targets. Everything possible has gone wrong, and $25 million wasted. Resistance inside and out of government, massive confusion and uncertainty, a ministry service plan that's under review and is now going to be done, investigations by the auditor general, and more cuts still to come.

If the minister insists on pushing ahead despite this mess he's creating, can he tell us how much more money that should go to treating kids, protecting kids, is instead going to the botched transition process, to the new regime that's already wasted $25 million?

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the service plan the member made reference to, there was a reduction of some 1,000 children in care in the past year, which is consistent with the service plan as it was put forward. In terms of those numbers, we were right on with respect to that.

With respect to the transition process we've been involved in, we have focused and continue to focus our dollars around the issues of health and safety. To that end, we've increased by $10 million the amount of money going into family development, which is to support those people who come into care. The member may not be aware, but 65 percent of the children coming into the care of the state have been coming in, under the past government, from single parents who were on income assistance. In many instances, they need a bit of support rather than to be taken into the care of the state. We're moving forward in terms of being able to respond to the community response to that.

We're meeting with people around this province and looking at the service plan. We've learned a great deal in the course of the past two years, and we need to ensure that we're applying what we've learned in a good, evidence-based way to ensure that the focus and direction we go in is most appropriate. We've got to build capacity in the community, and we're doing that through the dollars we're putting into communities to build that capacity for them to respond to it.

J. Kwan: This week is National Hospice Palliative Care Week. Will the Minister of Health Services use this opportunity to announce that he's going to reverse his government's cold-hearted decision to close respite beds at St. Paul's Hospital for persons with AIDS and others who are living with terminal illnesses?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am actually very proud of the work that's been done by my colleague the Minister of

State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care around palliative care strategy. It is actually the first time in this province that we've ever been able to move to a comprehensive approach that's provincewide instead of the patchwork of palliative care initiatives we had seen up to two years ago. There is certainly maintenance of the palliative care support that's in place. Also, as the member will know, part of the increased federal funding that will flow is being designated for palliative care. I see that over the years to come, we will be able to expand that program in the context of a provincewide framework that provides consistency throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The reality is this: respite beds at St. Paul's are a critical part of continuing care for persons with AIDS. Advocates in the health care professions say this decision to close beds — and that's what this government is doing: closing beds — is catastrophic and is a direct result of budget cuts. They say it's penny-wise and pound foolish. St. Paul's is being forced to cut some $200,000 this year alone to meet its budget. How can this minister stand up today, day after day, and say he's protecting health care? He said the beds are coming, when at the same time what is happening right now is that he's cutting the beds at St. Paul's for people with AIDS. Does he not consider these beds to be part of the health care system?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that the member…. Well, I was going to say she should know. Maybe she doesn't know, but if she doesn't know, I'll inform her that this government made a significant investment in the new Dr. Peter Centre in Vancouver, which will actually provide for additional services for AIDS patients in British Columbia.

I would also like to point out to this member that this government added $1.1 billion to the health budget in this province. We are seeing a reorganization of health care in terms of how it can be delivered and where those services can be delivered so that we can better meet the needs of patients, whether they're in the middle of downtown Vancouver or whether they're in smaller communities in the heartland regions of the province.

P. Nettleton: I remember a number of years ago at the Oscar awards ceremony when an outsider at that time, Sally Field, was presented an Oscar. Overcome by the shock of being accepted, she blurted out: "You like me. You really, really like me."

Well, today I also feel like I've been nominated for an Oscar, not for my acting — although some of you may differ — but because in my mail this morning I received a letter that demonstrates conclusively I'm still a part of the B.C. Liberal team. The letter came from none less than Kelly Reichert, the executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party, urging me "to make a financial contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party today…"

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the member now please put his question.

"…so that the clock isn't turned back on the progress our team is continuing to make." Yes, Kelly, I want to do my part in fighting the special interest groups too. Just show me where to sign up.

P. Nettleton: Absolutely. You all know I'm a team player, and this letter proves it. Perhaps the Minister of Finance….

P. Nettleton: My question to the Minister of Finance is: perhaps he could tell me where to make the cheque payable and how much. After this letter I'm feeling really generous. And you like me; you really, really like me.

Hon. G. Collins: I know that the party awaits the member's generous contribution.

I. Chong: This past Sunday I participated in the official launch for the beginning of Rick Casey's bicycle ride across Canada, which is being called "The Miles for Mental Health." The purpose of Mr. Casey's journey is to raise awareness around the issues of mental health.

Recently the government announced a development of an information plan for mental health and addictions. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health explain why we need such an information plan, what it is supposed to accomplish and how this information will be available to serve all the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Cheema: On Sunday we announced the development of the B.C. partners for mental health and addiction information. The goal of this information plan is to establish a single reliable source for people in B.C. to consult for credible and useful information on mental health and addiction issues. This partnership includes representation from all provincial mental health organizations, the Ministry of Health and UBC. It's truly groundbreaking to see all these provincial

agencies working together to bring their experience, expertise and community ties to the table.

The theme of this year's Mental Health Week is mental health literacy, and this plan will help to build mental health literacy. The primer is the first project of the mental health and addiction plan. The information from this plan needs to reach as many British Columbians as possible, and the partnership is presently looking at translating the primer into other languages, including Chinese and Punjabi. This is truly a remarkable achievement in this province.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is the continuation of a second reading debate that began a couple of days ago. At that time I laid out for the House some of the rationale behind this, which is one of a series of bills that represent the cornerstone of our forest revitalization strategy. I spent some time talking about the principles that underlie the entire strategy and how they are reflected in this piece of legislation. I spoke about the objectives and the themes — the three, actually, that relate to maximizing or creating new opportunities for British Columbians to be involved in the forest sector. I spoke about getting the right log to the right processing facility, maximizing the value of the fibre we harvest and, lastly, ensuring that we create a structure in which British Columbians who own the resource can be satisfied they are receiving an adequate and fair market-based return for the resource they sell to operators, to licensees, and that licensees can be confident they are paying a fair market-based price for the timber they are purchasing access to.

Within the bill I want to talk about two features that I think are important and that are captured within the context of this bill, which, though not particularly lengthy volume-wise, do in fact represent something of a seminal departure for the management of our forest resource within British Columbia. I talked last day at some length about the rationale behind altering the timber processing and appurtenancy provisions that have historically been part of forest management policy in British Columbia and captured within the provisions of the existing Forest Act.

Today I'd like to spend just a few moments talking about two remaining features that are dealt with in this legislation. One is cut control. For those British Columbians who may be less familiar with some of the terminology, cut control in its basic form speaks to the restrictions and requirements we place around those who are granted harvesting rights in British Columbia. Maximum cut control is something that everyone gets, because it is the mechanism — the tool we use — by which we regulate against overharvesting. People will know that the chief forester, based on the application of scientific methodology, sets a maximum annual allowable cut. That occurs within the timber supply areas that exist within British Columbia. That annual allowable cut is divided up amongst various licensees.

Maximum cut control ensures that when a licence is granted, people don't overharvest, and that if they do, they pay very serious penalties, indeed, for so doing. It is the mechanism by which we ensure that we have sustainable forestry in British Columbia now, next week, next year and 100 years into the future, which is the time frame one needs to apply when measuring sound forest management practices.

It is, however, the flip side of that coin that has engaged much debate and attention when we talk about cut control. That is minimum cut control. That is the provision by which the Crown — the owner, on behalf of British Columbians, of the resource — has said to licensees: "Not only are we going to ensure, as we logically should, that you do not overcut the harvest rates that you have been granted, we are actually, by virtue of statute and regulation, going to require that you harvest a minimum amount." There are historical reasons around which that policy has developed. I think you can make a sound argument that there is a sound rationale behind the submission that says: "If you are granted the right to harvest timber owned by the people of British Columbia and you do not harvest that timber, then we are going to provide it to someone who will exercise that option."

Something else developed around the notion of minimum cut control, and that was a penalty provision. The penalty provision said that if you do not exercise your right to harvest, then you will be penalized — not by losing rights to the timber that you chose not to harvest but by losing rights moving forward into the future. It is that specific aspect of cut control that has puzzled me and troubled me. What it says to people operating in this business is that we — "we" being the state — are going to punish you for making decisions based on sound economics.

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

harvesting activity when we know full well — and they know full well — that they will lose money. It doesn't make sense.

We have signalled, in clear terms — and began signalling over a year and a half ago when I began talking about this — that we are interested in making changes, that we are interested in dealing with those provisions that — nonsensically, in my view — would purport to penalize people for engaging in sound economic management. I have looked far and wide to find another business and searched far and wide to locate a business person who believes it makes sense to be compelled to do things that lose money.

Correcting that anomaly, correcting or dealing with that issue is what lies at the heart of the provisions of this bill that deal with cut control.

What we are saying is that if you are provided with the right to harvest timber in British Columbia…. Let's use some figures. If it is 50,000 cubic metres a year, then at the end of the day you have to make some decisions around whether or not you can harvest that amount economically, sell the product, recoup your costs. If you can't, ultimately you risk going bankrupt. We are going to give you the flexibility that heretofore has been denied you to make those decisions.

If you decide at the end of the day that you cannot harvest those 50,000 — or 45,000, as per the existing requirement that compels you to harvest 90 percent over a cut control period…. If you decide on the basis of the application of sound economic analysis that you can't harvest that product without losing a significant amount of money, then we won't penalize you moving forward. You will retain the right to harvest that volume moving forward as per the conditions of your licence.

What you will lose is access to that undercut volume, because in addition to the cut control requirements, there have been provisions that allow companies to make application for the carry forward. It happens today. Companies today make economic decisions. If the market is so bad, no matter what the law says, companies decide: "We're not going to harvest. We are going to run afoul of our cut control requirements, and we will apply to carry forward that undercut volume." All kinds of subjective considerations come into play when the Crown has to then step in and decide whether or not to authorize that undercut carry forward.

We're going to change that. That option won't exist. The licensee will have a degree of flexibility, but the consequences of exercising that flexibility are that if an undercut volume results, that volume will be available for other participants in forestry.

I think it's an eminently defensible position to take and an eminently defensible approach to ensuring that our industry is conducting itself in accordance with basic, sound economic principles. If someone wants to alert me to another business, another industry that has flourished by embracing unsound economic principles, I'm all ears. But I haven't found one yet, and I haven't heard of one yet. That represents a fundamental feature of what is captured within the context of Bill 29.

The last feature to this piece of legislation that I wanted to spend a little bit of time on relates to something that hasn't attracted a huge amount of attention, but that in the long run I think is going to have some profoundly positive consequences and impacts on this industry.

Part of the reality of practising forestry and particularly being involved in the harvesting sector of B.C.'s forest economy for certainly the last 50 years and perhaps even longer is the fact that you are compelled to deal exclusively with the Crown. There is a degree of logic in that; the Crown owns the timber on behalf of the people of British Columbia. In addition to that, it has struck me that a number of the regulations that are in place and that have evolved and developed over the years have done a great deal to curtail what might otherwise be a very healthy flow of fibre within British Columbia. I will say again, as I said when we were involved in this debate several days ago, that none of what is contained within the provisions of Bill 29 does anything to remove or alter the restrictions that presently exist around the export of timber harvested off of Crown lands.

It has struck me as very odd that when two licensees — and again, I'm not necessarily talking about two large corporations; they could be small licensees or independent, family-owned businesses — decide they may wish to negotiate a transaction for the purchase and sale of a licence they own, their ability to conclude that transaction is put very much in doubt by the number of obstacles the Forest Act and regulations presently place in their path.

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

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

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

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

In addition to that, of course we have built some additional disincentives into this exercise, because over the last number of years previous governments have developed a provision whereby if you want to engage in that kind of transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the Crown takes back 5 percent of what's involved in the transaction. Well, there's a real incentive to develop economic opportunities within the forest sector. If you're going to close the deal, part of the price of so doing is that you've got to surrender 5 percent to the Crown. Then a whole other bureaucratic process developed around circumventing those provisions. Well, we are simplifying that component of practising forestry in British Columbia.

I have heard expressions of concern, and the one that I think makes a degree of sense relates to the fact that in parts of British Columbia, there are concerns around the issue of concentration of ownership. If you are building a forest policy around the notion of competition and an active market, in order to have an active market, you've got to have competition. If the timber rights are all owned in a particular region by a single licensee, you've got a problem.

That's why we have included specific provisions within Bill 29 to allow the Crown to maintain a review function with an eye to ensuring that there are adequate levels of competition. That is a key feature to the fundamental changes that are included within the provisions of Bill 29. You know, I think this is a provision that over the longer term is going to reshape the forest sector in a hugely positive way, because it provides another outlet for licensees who are seeking to access timber and who heretofore have had no choice but to go deal with the Crown.

Some people have said to me: "Well, who's going to sell their timber rights?" Well, in business sometimes you sell because you want to, because the price is right. Sometimes you sell because you have to. One person's challenge is another person's opportunity. The obstacles that have stood in the way of allowing people to capitalize on those opportunities are disappearing. I think it is a change that is going to provide significant new opportunities to people. I am already aware, since the introduction of this bill, of discussions that are taking place where licensees or people that might want to be licensees are planning to take advantage and make offers. Who knows if those offers will come to fruition? But people are planning around the use of this instrument to create for themselves new opportunities within forestry. That is a fundamental guiding principle to what this trilogy of legislation is designed to encourage and foster on our way to revitalizing the forest sector.

We are, I know, going to have a healthy debate and discussion around a number of the provisions in this bill. We started that yesterday and earlier today with respect to another one of the bills. They are, by any measure, significant changes. They are the product of extensive discussions with stakeholders all over the province, and they represent and they are and they have been shaped and guided by those discussions. At the end of the day, they represent my belief and the government's belief that if we are to once again see British Columbia's number one industry firing on all eight cylinders, we have to be prepared, as we are by virtue of this legislation, to deal with some fundamental issues.

If we are serious about wanting to create new opportunities for new entrants into the forest sector, we have to be prepared to deal with those statutory impediments that have historically prevented them from doing so, just as we, if we are serious about wanting to create new opportunities for people like first nations, have to be prepared, firstly, to acknowledge that it is impossible to do that without addressing the current allocation of fibre. If we are serious about wanting to ensure that the right log is getting to the right processing facility such that we maximize the value of that stick of timber, we have to be prepared, if that is our objective, to address longstanding policies that fundamentally preclude that from happening.

There are people who will say it is sound policy to require that a tree harvested here must go to a mill to become a 2-by-4. I am not one of those people. I am one of those people who believes that if that tree can realize a greater value by going to another facility within British Columbia for which it is better suited as a value-added product, that's where it should go, and that the jobs that creates are important and will add to the security our forest-dependent heartland communities need to have, want to have and deserve to have.

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

People understand in their hearts that change is required. People understand that policies that were designed to address the situation that existed 50 years ago are not accomplishing the job in 2003.

This industry remains our backbone. The changes contained within Bill 29 are big changes. They are a cornerstone to a revitalization plan that I think the government believes will return a sense of hope, a sense of future, for all of those heartland communities that rely on forestry. Of course, to all those British Columbians who believe it is an issue for someone else's town, I hope they understand — and I believe they

understand — that without a forest industry firing on all eight cylinders, all of us suffer. The services we expect, in whatever community we live, are tied very much to the overall performance of that industry.

This is the product of a great deal of consultation and a great deal of involvement by my colleagues here in this House. They have helped to shape this legislative approach to reform and revitalization. They have spent countless hours ensuring that the views of their constituents are heard via any number of committees that have been struck. They have brought those views to Victoria, as they should, to help guide the development of this seminal change in forest management policy.

This industry has built British Columbia, and it will continue to build British Columbia. Bill 29, which I am happy to commend to this House, represents a catalyst that will accelerate that process and get the engine that drives B.C.'s economy firing once again on all eight cylinders.

P. Nettleton: I'm pleased today to speak on second reading of Bill 29, the Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. There is a lot in this bill, just as there is a lot to this whole set of changes, and I'll raise today a few concerns relating to this bill that we have before us.

Bill 29, as the minister has indicated, would end timber-processing requirements. This is, as some describe, the social contract of forestry. This is what required timber to be processed in designated sawmills, in local sawmills, for those of us who live in communities that are forest dependent. The main industry, certainly in many of these resource-dependent towns, in fact is sawmills. It protected jobs, and not just any jobs but particular jobs in particular communities.

This timber-processing requirement helps to keep some small towns alive, but that does not appear to be the goal, at least in the short term, of Bill 29. There has, because of this, been some talk about the impact of forest communities on Vancouver Island, where numerous mills are expected to shut down. That will be tough in those communities — tough for those workers and tough for those families.

So, too, the same could occur in the north. When you spread the $75 million or so in transition assistance across the province, I don't expect it will go that far to help displaced forest workers wherever they live. It could never equal the benefits and, more important, the sense of worth of someone working in the industry, of a forester being gainfully employed in the forest industry. That's a major concern of mine.

As well, there is a further possible impact of ending the timber-processing requirements. If the timber doesn't have to be processed locally, where indeed will it be processed? In British Columbia, hopefully, we will not see — and the minister has made, again, some reference to this today — a deluge of raw logs headed overseas to the detriment of local mills and value-added manufacturers.

With this big push in British Columbia and elsewhere to crack open the market for wood products in places like China and all the efforts going toward that from the federal and provincial governments here…. With this big push on to teach China what to do with wood, how to build with wood and how to make things with wood, then surely in the long term we can imagine that businesses in China would be seeking, in fact, raw logs, not finished products. This indeed would hurt British Columbians.

Also, surely in the long term we can imagine that the Chinese companies would take our raw logs, cut and hammer and glue them into a finished product and then sell them back to us here in British Columbia. They would do this likely at a lower price than we could offer ourselves. We would see no "Made in B.C." imprint on the finished product. That would hurt B.C. as well, with Bill 29 ending timber-processing requirements.

The bill will also allow companies with forest licences to freely sell or subdivide those licences as they choose. This would purportedly have the effect of providing tenure holders with a new option in terms of accessing fibre instead of going to the Crown. Fine. I am concerned, however, that by allowing the selling of these licences, the opportunity would be created that would open the door to monopoly — if not right across British Columbia, perhaps in a region of the province. We have to wait and see, wait and hope, that provincial oversight will prevent such a monopoly. The legislation before us provides no such assurances. We have to hope that in doing this oversight, all those affected are consulted by this government.

Let's examine for a moment the track record on this. The forest package of reforms was announced in a secret location. We have first nations in the north readying their legal briefs to fight these changes because they feel they have not had adequate input into these changes and these bills presently before us, including Bill 29. We also have many front-line forest workers sitting down with their families wondering and discussing what the future might hold for forestry in this province and also, of course, for them, their families and their communities. The uncertainty, as these examples show, remains.

Forestry is complex. Perhaps it is a bit like rocket science. There may be unintended consequences not foreseen by these proposed changes. There may be new developments that require adjustments over time to these changes. There may be, as I believe, a need for this government to get its hands a bit more dirty, to roll up its sleeves and get into the northern communities, get onto the reserves and talk with the people there to see what they have to say — regularly. This means taking the time to get it right.

While the government has the best of intentions with the forestry revitalization agenda, I can conclude by saying that they can improve upon the way they

have developed and realized those intentions. They can improve upon the way they have developed their goals for what they would like forestry to look like in this province. It's a two-way street that will bring the best forest industry we can expect to have and benefit from.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we're just going to take about a five-minute recess.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 29. I'm speaking on this bill, recognizing that it is part of a whole series of important reforms that this government has introduced to bring new vitality to our most important industrial sector. I chose to speak on this bill rather than its companions because I think this bill is perhaps the one that introduces the most fundamental and far-reaching reforms around forestry reform. I believe that this bill and its companions, taken together, represent some of the more far-reaching and fundamental reforms that this Legislature will undertake in its life span.

These changes have been described by some as generational reform. I think that is a very apt description, because as the minister himself has said in introducing this bill, we are changing conditions around the business of forestry that have been in effect for longer than most of us have been on this planet, let alone been in British Columbia.

You know, for a person like me who spent his working life before this profession in the seafood business, I thought that the seafood business was complicated — as indeed it is — but this business is even more complex. So forgive me if I kind of skate over some rather difficult concepts. I am trying to learn as I go, and I think in the last two years I have gained some insights about this industry that can help this debate.

It's almost trite to say that forestry has a huge impact on the economy of British Columbia, but, you know, it's a fact that ought to be repeated over and over again, because people tend to forget. Even in my riding of Nanaimo, where forestry and its associated service and support sectors provide about 30 percent of incomes, the forest industry, because of its location in our community, tends to be taken for granted, forgotten…. I don't know what it is. I don't think that even in Nanaimo, a former resource community, the forest industry is really understood or appreciated by my constituents. It's because of the importance of the industry that I understand in my corner of B.C….. It makes it important that I take this opportunity to speak on the reforms that this bill introduces and, as I said, the others.

I talked about learning things about forestry. I've learned a lot. Just in the last month I've learned much about the enthusiasm of just one small woodlot owner in Nanaimo — a man with a 30-acre piece of property, who I swear knows the name of every tree and its life history in great detail. That kind of care and husbandry is, I think, very valuable and irreplaceable. We need to make those kinds of people — because I know my constituent isn't the only one who feels that way about his trees — part of our industry in the future.

I've also, in the last few months, learned a great deal about the determination of the larger private land owners. We have a number of very large private land owners, as you know, on southeast Vancouver Island. I've learned much about their determination and the determination of tenure holders to turn our forests into a new era of prosperity. I've learned about professional care and husbandry and how important that is to the industry. Let it be very clear that those who would argue that this industry is not environmentally sound simply haven't taken a look.

I've also learned about the tenacity, the determination, the business savvy and the problems of the manufacturing sector. I think it's clear from all of those people and the people who work in the forests and in the manufacturing facilities — I think they would agree with the minister — we need new prosperity in the forest industry.

I was intrigued — I guess a little bit amused — when a week or so ago the vice-president for British Columbia of Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Craig Neeser, was meeting with a few MLAs, and he told us that he had been preparing for a speech. He had gone back to a 1932 speech given by Mr. H.R. MacMillan, an icon of British Columbia. Mr. MacMillan's speech talked about issues facing the forestry industry 71 years ago. There were problems with trade issues. The United States had imposed a $4-per-thousand-board-foot tax, I believe it was, on British Columbia lumber products. The costs in the industry, according to Mr. MacMillan, were too high. In terms of markets, he was very concerned about Russian imports pushing Canadian–B.C. products out of the U.K. market.

Here we are 70 years later — a growth cycle in most parts of British Columbia — and one could say we are facing the same problems that H.R. MacMillan identified so many years ago. I think right now the reforms we are proposing are not only fundamental, but they are critical. I say they are critical because I put a lot of credit in the analysis that Dr. Peter Pearse gave us with respect to the coastal forest sector in his report back in November of 2001. I think he laid it out extremely clearly that we have some fundamental, critical problems that need to be addressed. While his remarks were limited to the coastal industry, because that was what he was asked to look at, I think that even in the interior some of his conclusions probably applied.

He talked about the aging capital stock that was employed in the business. He talked about an aging workforce. He talked about low and inadequate returns on equity. These are all indicators of an industry, an industrial sector, in trouble. Indeed, Dr. Pearse said that the coastal industry had been in a long-term decline for a quarter of a century.

What we have is more than a problem with U.S. protectionism. On the coast the industry is high-cost.

We have the highest costs of products, labour and fibre of any of our competitors, especially in the pulp sector.

The market has changed, as we all know, in recent years. There's not enough investment. I would argue with those who say: "Let's leave this industry alone and just carry on the way we are." I say — from what I have understood and what I have learned and the people I've listened to — that is simply not an option. We need to deal with these industry issues with some honesty. I think people who work in the industry deserve no less.

I don't want us to be like the last government, who put together the jobs and timber accord, which I think gave false hope to thousands of our fellow citizens. I don't think that's the right way to do things, and I think, quite frankly, the former government probably wouldn't do that again either.

The truth is that industry has shed 17,000 jobs in 26 manufacturing plants since 1997. That's less than six years ago. When you look at all these factors and the analyses, the expert opinion that has been sought as we move to these reforms, it's important to understand that the status quo simply cannot continue. We cannot expect, as a society, to have our forest industry and this valuable asset that we own collectively turned into wealth and jobs in British Columbia on the basis of the policy and the law as it exists before we introduce these reforms.

The reforms that are coming in Bill 29, as other speakers have mentioned, in part, do a couple of things. They remove the requirement for appurtenancy, and they amend the cut controls that have been part of the landscape for so long. Critics talk about tearing up a social contract, but to me a social contract that isn't working, that is creating job losses and reducing investment and causing an aging workforce — all the other things Peter Pearse talked about — is not acceptable.

It seems to me that the best social contract we can ask for and the best job protection we can find is through a profitable industry — an industry that makes profits that we'll plow back into our communities. That's how we are going to get this social contract. That's how people are going to stay in the towns in which they live and live the lifestyles they value, not by the kind of social engineering our predecessors introduced for what I am sure were perfectly valid reasons at the time.

We must now move forward. We must let the industry adapt to and benefit from the new situations that it faces. There are new market realities driving our industry that we must let drive our industry. What are they? Talk to anybody in the forest industry about what's happened in just the last half-dozen years in terms of product substitutions. Go to one of the major stores like RONA or Home Depot and see what is available in terms of product substitution. Look at where the products come from.

I said a moment ago that we are a very high-cost producer of fibre, and it's true. That's why countries like Latvia and other countries in eastern Europe are gaining such market share in the U.S.A. — in addition to the reason, of course, of the high tariff that's been imposed on Canada. It seems to me that in these kind of new circumstances and new market realities, for us to continue to force tenure holders to cut timber when markets don't support it is a policy that has at least, to say it kindly, outlasted its usefulness.

The bill also provides some flexibility for the subdivision of tenures and private business transactions where it makes sense. I think the fact that we are removing government from judging business deals is indeed a major step forward. It is through those kinds of moves that this bill will encourage investment in community forests and will encourage new tenure holders to come forward. Taken with the other reforms in other bills and other activities this government has made to make B.C. more business friendly, this bill promises to the fresh minds and the new people who will enter this industry to encourage their fresh ideas, and it will bring new investment.

At the same time we must recognize that this amount of change — and it is broad, deep and fundamental — creates a whole bunch of uncertainty in various quarters. How the reforms are implemented is critical, as is the timing. I want to urge the minister to move quickly to clarify the details that will fall from these pieces of legislation so that long-term investors in our province and new investors can build their new business plans around the new tenure taxation and marketing initiatives we are introducing.

I want to note, lastly, that the depth and breadth of consultations this minister undertook with the assistance of fellow MLAs and professional people — analysts, consultants — is unparalleled, as far as I'm aware, in the history of this province. The fact that that kind of consultation took place gives me considerable comfort that we have canvassed this issue extremely broadly. And, yes, not everybody will agree. We can't expect that. But nobody can say they didn't get a chance to give their opinion on these very important reforms, and nobody can say this government didn't suggest that these kinds of reforms were on the way.

I am pleased to support this bill. I think it is one piece in a puzzle of significant legislative and policy changes, including taxation changes, that will lead to a revitalized forest industry in our province — an industry that will continue to support those public services, like health and education, which this industry has supported in the past and will continue to support into the future.

J. MacPhail: Bill 29, the Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Here we are at second reading. It's the time when we discuss the general principles of the legislation. As the minister has noted for us on several occasions, this troika of bills — we've moved from trilogy to troika of bills: Bills 27, 28 and 29 — will dramatically change the way forest companies operate in this province. It will also dramatically change the way government manages and defends the public interest as these companies take public resources from public land in order to make a private profit.

It is testament to the breadth and depth of these changes that outside of the Liberal caucus there is anything but agreement on whether these changes are a good idea or not, anything but agreement on whether they will produce the results the minister claims or whether they will indeed move the industry from its current malaise to a healthier future.

If in Bill 27 we had the nuts and bolts of this new vehicle and in Bill 28 the marketing plan, here in Bill 29 we have the chassis. This is the platform from which the cart will run. It is here that the government turns our public forests into a real estate commodity, a commodity controlled by the forest companies, a commodity that used to be controlled by the people of this province through this Legislature.

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

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to introduce a group of grade 5 students from Beaver Creek Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers and their parents.

I had a good exchange of ideas with them this afternoon. They asked me a number of questions, and one of them was: what's my favourite team? So I told them we are all hoping the Canucks will win. They had a number of other questions, and I told them that they have to work hard, because one of them wants to run for politics.

I just wanted to welcome them, and I would like the House to make them very welcome in this building.

J. MacPhail: To carry on with Bill 29 debate, I would argue that this bill makes tenures more like private property. It allows and, I would argue, encourages tenure holders to consolidate their holdings. It allows — again, I would argue that it encourages — tenure holders to subdivide and sell off a publicly owned asset: our forests. All of this without meaningful provincial oversight or approval.

Existing tenure holders will be given the opportunity for even greater consolidation now. They will be able to sidestep conflicts with communities, first nations or environmentalists simply by selling off "problem" portions of their tenures. It's never been permitted before, with good reason.

As well, the removal of government approval to tenure transfers, combined with the consolidation and subdivision provisions, will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the province to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities to first nations, leaving this new legislation open to constitutional challenge. The last thing we need in this province is more court challenges that will forever disallow certainty of land use. Certainty of land use is the only reason that people will come and invest in this province. It's either that — constitutional challenge in the court — or throw the whole process into constant and replicating rounds of consultation. Consultation is the constitutional right of first nations before anyone can derive any gain whatsoever from the forests. In this case, the government has not done that.

The result will not be better forest management or increased employment or higher government revenues. There will, however, be a two-fold result: on one hand, increased profits for the corporate giants; on the other hand, a further distancing of the management of our public resource from those who own the resource — us, the people of B.C.

We as legislators need to ask ourselves if that is what we are here for. Is that what we got elected to do — to increase the profits of private companies operating on public lands? I didn't; my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant didn't. I stand up and challenge the Liberal caucus to say that that is not what they are here for as well. Or are we here to protect our public resource from those who see it not as a public legacy but as a source of private profit?

What of the communities that depend on this resource? What have they been saying? Well, how's this for a ringing endorsement of the government plans? "You should phone me back in about six months. It's problematic up here, because there's a fear among some people that the raw logs will simply be shipped somewhere else." That's from the mayor of Terrace.

Then there's the industry itself. The Council of Forest Industries "cautioned that the impacts have to be managed carefully." Secondary manufacturers are also "cautious." Another group is also cautious, saying there will be "huge impacts" — the logging contractors. Brian Zak of the Coast Forest and Lumber Association expressed uncertainty and concern for how this plan is to mesh with the global markets that they must compete in. Dan Garland, of the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, has expressed fears that the changes in this bill will only favour the big companies, and that will occur by forcing small specialty producers to compete on the same footing as the multinationals.

Again, we're talking about a publicly owned resource here. Doman Industries, the mainstay of logging and processing on the Island, says these changes will increase costs, reduce employment and result in mill closures. In fact, according to Doman, what the government is doing is "rewarding the forest companies that have high-graded their tenure by breaking the Forest Act and taking all the good wood out and leaving the poor wood behind. They are punishing companies who are trying to provide stable and sustainable employment in coastal B.C. by practising proper forest practices in order to protect current and future generations of forestry workers."

Rick Doman goes on to ask this very important question, a key question. He asks: "Why are we agreeing with the U.S. lumber coalition when the World Trade Organization says we aren't subsidizing our industry?" It's a pretty good question.

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

The government is rolling over on cut control, rolling over on tying the cut to communities and is effectively privatizing tenure. They're not getting anything in return — nothing. The industry continues to suffer losses. Jobs continue to disappear. The lumber lobby from the United States continues to demand more.

The government, I admit, has not been in this process alone. However, it has simply chosen to listen only to its own voice. First nations, environmentalists, the IWA, the PPWC, the CEP, local communities and concerned citizens have come together in common cause to ask — in fact, to plead with this government — the government to bring them into the discussions and to listen to their concerns and their ideas on how best we protect our most abundant and important land-based resource — protect it not for the relatively few that work directly in the industry, but protect it for our collective benefit. That's what we got elected to do. I hope that's what everybody in this chamber got elected to do. Protect it for the schools it builds, the hospital it funds and the communities it supports.

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

No, this government has chosen to listen to the demands of American protectionism and the greed of corporate boardrooms. That shouldn't come as any surprise. Certainly, it won't come as any surprise to people in this chamber. Increasingly, it won't come as any surprise to the public, because, of course, those corporate boardrooms provided over $3 million in donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. No wonder the Premier doesn't want to have campaign finance reform. Where could he get $3 million as easily as from those corporate boardrooms?

Let us not get too carried away with blame. Sometimes governments make mistakes regardless of who is paying the tab. Most tragically for those who depend on governments, arrogant governments refuse to acknowledge their mistakes, refuse to take corrective action, refuse to look beyond their narrow partisanship and insist that their way is the only way; their vision, the only vision; and their answers, the only answers.

That is what we are seeing with this bill. It is the product not of extensive public consultation and information-sharing but of kowtowing to the demands of big business for easier and greater access to our public forests wrapped in a lovely little public relations campaign.

The bill not only says tenure can be subdivided, sold and traded. It also says the annual cut control requirement will be amended to allow companies to escape penalty for over- or undercutting their annual allowable cut, and it will allow them to restart their five-year annual allowable cut at any point. Isn't that comforting? The impact of this change alone will be dramatic. What it does is reinforce the liquidation-conversion mentality, the cut-and-run mentality, the bull-of-the-woods mentality that has so characterized the history of this industry in British Columbia. As a result, this bill is a backward step, a step that only an arrogant, bull-headed government would take.

The minister and his colleagues make the claim that this is the biggest change in the forest management of our province in over 50 years. Unfortunately, he is right. What the government is doing is surrendering to a debate that has been going on in various forms and in various forums for generations.

It is perhaps ironic that I should stand here and suggest that we remember B.C.'s first chief forester, H.R. MacMillan, but I do so to note, as others such as Jeremy Wilson have, that H.R. MacMillan was instrumental in establishing a "weak advance guard of scientific managers in the province's new Forest Service, where they faced and did rather poorly against a forest industry determined to limit the scope of government efforts to conserve the resource, extract rent and control speculative industry."

The Forest Service set the battleground and grew to defend what is our natural legacy as British Columbians and as Canadians, not always as vigorously as many wanted but at least in a way that let us all debate how our forests should be managed. People who work in the Forest Service take such unbelievable pride in their role in allowing that debate to flourish. Here today we have the surrender. The battle H.R. MacMillan started is over now, and he lost, and the people of British Columbia will continue to lose.

Despite the fact that no company has ever been penalized for undercutting its annual allowable cut due to market pressures, this government likes to perpetuate the myth that trees were being cut down just to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement. I hear it all the time from these Liberal MLAs. "Do you know what companies had to do because of the stupid, silly law that was in place?" Well, in fact, companies didn't have to do what this government claims as being silly. They were never, ever penalized for any such non-committal under the act. Now, as a result of this myth the government likes to perpetuate, this government gives the companies the right to cut the equivalent of 15 years' worth of annual allowable cut in ten years. It gives the company the ability to move into an area, cut as much as it can in that area as fast as it can and then sit idle.

What are the consequences of this action? For every action there is a reaction. What this government likes to perpetuate, saying: "Oh, the rules were outdated and harmful to the growth of the industry, harmful to the flourishing of this industry in our province…." By now outlawing that requirement of a company to cut every year, here's what the reaction is to that action. Well, if a licensee is allowed to remain inactive for two or three years, workers in that industry will lose all seniority and recall rights. That will cause a break in service in their pension plan. They will lose extended medical and dental coverage. That's what it means for the working people in the industry. Most, before this happens, will have pressures mount in their families, on their families, and most will simply move on. As a result of those forest workers moving on, communities will suffer.

The first act of this government, the very first act — some may not recall it, and lots won't want to recall it — was to create a $4.5 billion deficit. Now every action they take is an action to help them crawl out from under the creation of that $4.5 billion deficit. Stumpage revenue, the amount of taxes collected from the forest industry, plays a major part in government revenues. By allowing the companies to determine their own cut control, the government is adding even more uncertainty to its ability to forecast revenues, because it won't have any reliable base from which to project stumpage revenues.

What happens to the budget of the province in the year the companies decide to sit idle? What happens to all those great hospitals and schools that these Liberal MLAs like to stand up about and say: "It's the forest revenues that pay for those hospitals and schools"? You're darn right; it is the forest revenues that pay for them. What happens in the years the companies sit idle and perform no business in this province? For the Liberals, this is called flexibility. For those who live in forest-dependent communities, what it really means is a return to the boom-and-bust cycles that undermine community stability and community coherence.

The government members will call this fair, they will herald the triumph of the marketplace, but those in the communities on the coast and in the interior will wonder why they get to work only three years out of five while the company continues to make profits five years out of five. When only the market decides, the wealthiest and most powerful quickly gain advantage. That isn't an ideological statement; that's a statement about the marketplace. Only the wealthiest and the most powerful gain advantage. Workers, on the other hand, face job loss and insecurity as companies bid one another out of business, leaving only a few huge corporations in control.

Members will have seen the first quarter report from Canfor last week, where it reports a $1.3 million loss for the first three months of this year. It also reports how its cost reduction–margin improvement program — that's David Emerson's, a man for whom I have great respect, euphemism for closing two sawmills last year — yielded a saving of $13 million. Good for David Emerson — I say that — but not so good for the workers.

Of course, those listening will have heard about the investment Canfor is making in its Houston operation, an investment that will make it the largest sawmill in the world. Again, good for David Emerson and good for the town of Houston, but what does this foretell for the industry — supermills and consolidation?

What will it mean to the workers, communities and government revenues if, as it is widely anticipated, Canfor and Slocan should merge? That's not just gossip. That fuels the business pages every week in this province. People are predicting that Jimmy Pattison and David Emerson — Jimmy P. and David E. — will rule the woods. What does that mean for the workers and the communities and government revenues?

The minister likes to talk about opportunity. He sees his reform of forest policy as creating opportunities for those who have not had access to wood. But how much access is the value-added sector going to get when the giants of the industry continue to grow and need fibre and need wood? These changes the government claims will bring new investors to the industry will do nothing of the sort. All they will do is force the small mill, the value-added mill sector, and the first nations to compete head-on with the giants. This is not about building capacity, as the Minister of Forests claims. It's about building the bottom line of a very few but very large companies.

B.C. wood processors will face closure as raw logs are shipped across the border. If the minister doesn't believe me, then perhaps he should take a walk some evening along the Ogden Point causeway and look out onto the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and he will see the barge loaded with logs from the Carmanah heading south. That's happening as we speak.

That may be good for the fallers, for the men in the woods who cut down the trees. It may even be good for the longshore workers in Ladysmith. But again, it's not good for British Columbians. Communities will face instability and insecurity as mills close and companies consolidate. And most troubling of all, first nations will again be shut out of the benefits. We will lose revenues that support publicly funded health care and

education as well as many other quality programs for British Columbians. Perhaps the Ministry of Children and Family Development will have to make even greater cuts than it's already making.

With the exception of those constitutionally enshrined democratic rights that we enjoy, there are very few, if any, areas of government that we should not all be trying to improve. We are not opposed to reform in the way we manage our forests — far from it. Most of the people who are critical of this government's backroom plan are aware that the forest industry needs to constantly improve in order to be competitive, and the countries with whom we compete grow every day. We're aware of that. We also believe that government has a role in making sure that opportunity is not lost.

Indeed, several efforts have been made, separate and apart from the government's backroom dealings, to have public discussions about how the Crown's forest assets can be better managed to sustain communities across the province, to provide into the future the economic activity that supports the hospitals and schools that we all care about in those communities, and that gives security to families and small businesses. These people should be commended for their effort, committing their own resources and time, doing a job that many would argue this government should have done right from the start. They should be commended for working through some of the very difficult problems in a very public way.

The coalition of forest solutions, composed of environmental groups; municipal leaders; first nations representatives; labour organizations, including the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, which represents workers who monitor the use of this public resource; carpenters; pulp and paperworkers…. They all grappled with the very difficult issue of the softwood lumber dispute and the future of the forest industry. They then came to some pretty straightforward principles upon which to base any change, including these principles: enhancing public control and oversight of our forest resources; reconciling aboriginal and Crown title; ensuring the public gets full value for forest resources through transparent regional log markets, with linked pricing reforms and stronger export restrictions; securing timber supply for current local processing needs and the development of a strong value-added industry; creating, implementing and enforcing forest practice standards that promote the long-term health of B.C.'s forest ecosystems; keeping forest sector jobs in B.C. communities with the revised social contract, thereby protecting existing workers and creating greater opportunities for local communities and employment.

That's a pretty straightforward, comprehensive, thoughtful and commonsense set of principles upon which to base change, I would say. These principles only came about as the result of a lot of hard work, but in the end they resonate as true.

I wonder what the government's response is to these principles. I'd like to hear the opinion of the Minister of Forests on which of these principles he would discard. I would also like to hear the minister tell us how his backroom plan meets any of these tests.

The government tries to belittle the outcry from communities about this backroom forest policy, but they should pay heed to just how many people — how many municipalities, for example — are expressing concern. Recently the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities met, and top of their list was concern about where the government is going with this plan. They endorsed a resolution that (1) endorsed forest policy reform that puts communities and forests first and (2) called upon the government to conduct community hearings to discuss the merits and implications of alternative forest policy change for communities, workers and the environment before proceeding with the remaining forest policy change legislation.

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

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

Governments should help communities to maintain existing processing facilities, as any attempt to close a mill or plant or shut down a harvesting operation should be subject to a legislated mill closure review involving workers, government and first nations in the affected communities. That should be a minimum.

Local workers and employers must be given the opportunity to maintain the enterprises that provide their livelihoods. It is simply unacceptable for the government to say: "We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of things." Workers who lose their jobs must be assisted to find new ones. They must be able to obtain training and retraining opportunities or retire with dignity, without financial penalties to their union pension plans or to themselves.

No one — I say no one — doubts that the wood industry and the economy are changing and that the industry must be able to accommodate that change. However, giving the companies free rein to cut when and where they want and to mill what and where they want undermines the nature of the social contract that exists between those private companies who are accessing our public resource. As such, following the failure of a mill closure review to find a workable solution, companies must be required to outline proposals for new or expanded facilities in British Columbia with the priority on the affected region.

It is not acceptable for the government to say: "Oh, we don't care about that anymore. Let the industry reorganize. We don't care what the consequences are." I put those questions to the minister this morning, and he said: "Sorry. We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of things."

In order to continue to access Crown timber, companies would have to increase their investment in our province's future. Under no circumstances should Crown timber be granted without such a commitment. Logs must continue to be processed in British Columbia, and companies must produce, to the satisfaction of cabinet, a detailed plan. That plan should show how they would expand their investment in our future by creating additional jobs, undertaking or sponsoring more research and development, increasing the value-added component of their products, doing more to improve yields and the quality of the timber they produce, training the changing workforce and continuing to maintain a healthy and safe environment for workers and communities as well as protecting our forests.

Forest objectives and outcomes should be legislated. There is no sin in that. It is a fair trade. Even in the private marketplace, it's a fair trade to have forest objectives and outcomes legislated to provide clear and enforceable standards with strong penalties to violators. These are not private lands. These are publicly owned lands. Yet massive cutbacks in provincial ministries responsible for the forests undermine the ability of government to carry out effective enforcement.

We are being told to trust the developers. We are being told not to worry because professionals, paid for by the forest industry, will make sure everything is done in the public interest. Perhaps members would do well to read the most recent issue of Forum. That's the publication put out by the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. Judy Thomas writes, in an article, about this experience she has had and how the changes introduced by this government will impact on the job that foresters and other professionals will be called on to do. She writes this in her own professional magazine. Here's what she said:

That's from a professional forester. But here we are. We're being told that the public interests and the private interests of the industry will merge, but as this example shows, our reliance on others to do the job we are supposed to do as public servants, which is to protect the public interest, is now fraught with problems — problems brought on by this government's decision to give control of the forest to the companies and to gut the protective role of the Forest Service.

I want to conclude my remarks by returning to the question of consultation and advise those who are listening to this debate that they should know there will be an opportunity, in some communities at least, to participate in this debate. Forest sector unions, supported by the B.C. Federation of Labour, will hold town hall meetings in three B.C. communities to highlight their concerns about forest policy proposals now before the B.C. Legislature. The meetings are going to be held on May 8 in Prince George, May 12 in Port Alberni and May 13 in Kamloops. They are urging attendance from representatives of local government, first nations leaders, industry, small business operators, forest sector workers and any and all citizens concerned about their jobs, their communities and their futures.

These are the people who work in the woods, the people who work in the mills — the very people whom we should all look to for guidance about forest policy. I do. My party does, because they have an interest in a sustainable forest industry. They live in the communities most affected. They support those communities with their tax dollars. Here's what they're saying, as recently as yesterday, about what this government should be doing about forestry:

That was what was said yesterday by first nations, by community activists and by forest workers.

Again, I challenge the minister to do the right thing: hoist this bill; get out there; talk to British Columbians. Don't give them a chance to not have their say. Give them a chance to raise their voices and offer their views. Give them a chance to speak. Don't be afraid, because there's a lot of goodwill out there. People want to be part of a positive solution.

In order to assist the minister in that, I move this motion. I have a copy for the minister as well. I move this motion in my name:

J. MacPhail: This is a motion that will allow a compromise solution. The legislation stays. The legislation is here for all to examine, and it says six months from now we'll be back to debate the legislation. In the meantime the community can have a say; the community can meet with the minister; the community can meet with their local MLAs — those very local MLAs who perhaps will not stand up in the Legislature and represent their communities' concerns on this legislation.

It is not saying: kill the legislation. This motion to delay passage for a mere six months will allow us to be back in our regular autumn session, already scheduled, and debate this legislation. But it will be an informed debate. It will be a debate after the community has had a chance to have a say, after first nations have had their legally required consultation. The government will have performed its legally required duty to accommodate the interests of first nations. Workers will be able to tell this government how they will be harmed by this legislation.

And who knows? We might even have movement on the softwood lumber dispute — good movement. We might be close to settling. We might have a settlement, and therefore we can, as British Columbians, have a made-in-B.C. legislation that's not guided by the Americans in an effort to appease, but a made-in-B.C. solution to change that everybody wants in the forest sector.

So I hope that all in this Legislature will join with me in passing this amendment.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of the amendment that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition has moved, and that is to call for the government to take a step back, to get out there and consult with the community. It will allow for a six-month period to hear from the community in terms of what they think about this piece of legislation and, perhaps more importantly, to hear from the community what they think the solutions are in the area of dealing with the forestry issue.

I'll be the first to admit that finding the right solution is not an easy one. It is a complex issue. It demands a lot of attention from government but at the same time a lot of innovation as well. It needs to bring partners together from communities across British Columbia who have been hard hit because of the forestry concerns and challenges we're faced with. It demands that those from the environmental community come together with those in the industry to find sustainable solutions — solutions that will build towards a forestry industry that will last in time.

I know this, and I say this not in a cliché kind of way; I say it and I really mean it, having just had a newborn. You know, it hits you all the more now how important the work we do is. Why is that? Because the work we do has ramifications for the future. It is not just this generation for which we have to be mindful about what happens in this Legislature, but rather what happens for the next generation and the generations to come. That is vital. It's vital for the health of our communities.

To allow for time — a six-month delay, as in the amendment that's been put forward by my colleague — does not, I would argue, throw out the government's agenda in any way, shape or form. It only allows for a better process so that perhaps we'll find better solutions for the problems and challenges we're faced with. You have to ask the question: is our future worth that time and investment? And I would argue yes. The answer is yes. Our community deserves that time and that commitment from the government.

It is this government, the Liberal government, who made a commitment that they will be open and consultative, that they will go out there and talk to the community and invite them to the table. Well, here's an opportunity. Here's an opportunity for government to do exactly that on an issue they also campaigned on, and that's for the economic revitalization of this province. We know that in British Columbia, the forestry industry is central to the province's economy. We know it is central. The government has an opportunity to do exactly that.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, actually mentioned a list of communities who asked for the government to step back, who asked for the government to say: "Wait a minute. We have a lot of concerns about this piece of legislation." And you know what? The list of communities ranges from Courtenay to Alert Bay to Comox to Esquimalt to North Cowichan to Oak Bay. All the communities that are impacted by the forestry industry are impacted by this piece of legislation. The regional districts are asking for the government to step back.

This government, and particularly the Premier, promised he would consult with the community, promised he would listen to the public and promised he would listen to elected officials. Well, here's an opportunity to do exactly that — for the government to

stop and step back and invite people to the table and to find a solution that works for everyone. Not just a solution that would be great for the industry — and when I say that, I mean the big businesses, the owners of the mills — but for everyone. I mean for the workers. I mean for the communities. I mean for the future, for our environment and for everyone concerned.

A joint statement has just been put forward by the Federation of Labour, the First Nations Summit, the CEP and the IWA. Here's what the statement says:

This joint statement was signed by Dave Coles, representing the western region, vice-president of the CEP; Ed John, the political executive member of the First Nations Summit; Dave Haggard, president of the IWA-Canada; Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. People are coming together to urge the government to do something very simple: listen to the voices of the people — something that this government, this Liberal Party, had campaigned on and committed to.

As the statement had made very clear, it is a very important issue, much too important an issue for the government to use their majority to bring through legislation without due process — far too important, when this government promised that they would want to settle aboriginal rights issues and want to advance in the treaty-making process. Something that the aboriginal community has already legally earned and has the right to is for the government to consult with them. Yet these bills are being put through this House without that due process, and it's wrong for the government to do so. It harms relations, and it harms the future of our forestry industry for all British Columbians.

The community also has other comments to make with respect to what they think about this bill and why the Leader of the Opposition has put forward the motion, the amendment, to say: "Hold up. Let's get out there and talk to people and find the right solution that works for everyone."

There is an op-ed piece that was put forward by the CCPA. It's called "Not the Year of the Forest Community," and I'll quote parts of this op-ed piece, for the members' information, onto the record. The article is written by Dale Marshall. It starts by saying:

The motion that the Leader of the Opposition put forward, as I mentioned, is a simple one. We're not even saying throw the entire bill out — not at this time. Get out there and talk to people. That's all we're asking.

Maybe consultation is something members of this House will simply laugh at. I hope not, because after all, the Liberals campaigned on the commitment to consult with the public. That's what it says in the New Era document. The New Era document promised a lot of things.

The forestry industry impacts far too many people, far too many communities. The social contract that's been mentioned in the CCPA article includes…. It has greater ramifications than just a short debate in this House. For members, we need to get out there to talk to our community. We need to make sure their voices are heard. We need to make sure a sustainable solution is found, one that works for everyone.

The members of this House from the communities that have been mentioned earlier, who were asking for the government to step back, who are asking for the government to come out and talk with them, who are saying, "We want you to stand up to represent us…." Well, I want to hear from those members, and I anticipate that their communities want to see that representation in this House.

In order to ensure that the best representation takes place, what better way than for all members of this House, upon the adjournment of this session at the end of May, to get out there and talk with their constituents and invite them to put forward their thoughts so a thoughtful solution can be found in addressing these critical issues that are before us?

Here are other comments from someone that perhaps members of this House, the Liberal government, would not anticipate. It is actually from the former Socred MLA Howard Lloyd. Here's what he had to say: "Rather than revitalizing forestry in B.C., the Liberals have further strengthened major licence's stranglehold on public forest lands and resources."

This is, as I mentioned, from Howard Lloyd, the former Socred MLA — not from a New Democrat

MLA, but a Socred MLA — a logger and a grandpa — someone, I anticipate, who is making these comments because, again, it is not just for the here and now that we need to find the solutions in the forestry sector, but it is for the future. I suspect it means something that he signs this letter with the notation that he is a grandpa. It means that we need to think about these issues in a sustainable way, I would assume, for future generations — for his grandchildren and for his grandchildren's children and the generations to come.

The government is eager to move forward. I anticipate, perhaps, that they'll say they have all the solutions — that they have already consulted. But I have to ask the question: if that was the case, then why did everybody come forward — who's talked to the opposition leader, who's talked to our staff, to us — urging the government to say no to this legislation, saying we need to get out there and talk with people?

Why would local governments be coming forward to say to the government: "Talk to us. This piece of legislation is not the answer"? Why are people coming forward to say to the government: "Please stop and think for a moment"? Why would the first nations community come forward and say: "You need to consult with us"? It's a major issue within the aboriginal community. If we want stability for the future, what we need today is consultation — something that is legally bound, I would argue; rights that the aboriginal community has.

If we want to move forward in the treaty-making process, then it is the government's obligation to show their responsibility and to act on them and, at the minimum, to get out there and talk with the aboriginal community around these changes.

The legislation is far-reaching, and it's not just one bill. It's several bills that come together. It's several bills in a short period of time that this government wants to push through in this House, but the ramifications are long-lasting and far-reaching not only in the communities where the workers, loggers and their families depend upon it but, I would say, for the whole of British Columbia for economic development.

The government talks about heartland strategy, some sort of heartland strategy that they say is good for the heartlands. Yet, when we talk about the forestry industry where it impacts the heartlands, where these communities want to say, "Come and talk to us so that we, too, can have a say, so that we, too, can provide you with what our thoughts are in terms of what the solutions are towards the challenges we face in the forestry industry," the government appears to not listen. They seem to think they have all the answers, even though the communities who are impacted the most — and all of British Columbia would be impacted — are saying: "No, these are not the answers, and it would not address the concerns we have, and it would not provide for a sustainable forestry industry for generations to come."

I would urge members of this House, particularly those members representing the list of communities and regional districts my colleague has read out, to rise in this House, to support this amendment, to tell the government that we need to stop, to hold up the ramming through of this legislation and to get out there and talk with the community to ensure that the right solutions are found to ensure a sustainable forestry industry for generations to come.

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, welcome to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for her first participation in the debate since returning to the House. It's good to have her back. I am obliged to both members for their participation thus far. Both have made comments that relate to the substantive provisions of the legislation. I'll reserve my comment with respect to that commentary until the conclusion of the debate.

Let me say this, though, with respect to the specifics of the motion we are dealing with today. I am first and foremost somewhat puzzled by the assertion that anything is being rammed through. I understand that the members have tabled a motion that would seek the imposition of a traditional six-month hoist, but the legislation we're dealing with has been before the House on the order paper for over a month. We are proceeding through, I think, a thoughtful debate. There is clearly a difference of opinion, but it is, I think, unfair to suggest that anything is being rammed through.

Let me also say this. This government inherited a situation in the forest sector that, quite frankly, has seen that most important industry in decline for some time. The previous government ignored the symptoms, in my view, largely because they did not want to acknowledge the problem existed. They certainly did not want to address the difficult issues that dealing with those symptoms required. This legislation addresses those difficult issues, perhaps not in the way these members would like and perhaps, candidly, not in the way every single interested party would like. But to suggest, as these members have, that there has not been a degree of consultation is again, I think, inaccurate. What I want to emphasize to the House in making clear that I do not support the motion presently before us is that the legislative package we are debating and the bill we are debating today are the products of a year and a half of very intensive, ongoing discussions and consultations with British Columbia.

I will just take a moment to read through a list of the organizations and agencies. It's a partial list, and it is a snapshot of the discussions that have taken place. I'm not talking about a ten-minute exercise in: "What do you think?" I mean intensive, one-on-one meetings that occurred with a number of first nations around the province.

I know there is a desire to somehow leave the impression that the government met only with a certain component of the forest sector, but that just simply isn't so. That is not the case, and it's not true to say that. We met with stakeholders large and small from every component of the forest sector. I'll read through some of them: the independents, the family-owned busi-

nesses; Carrier Lumber — remember them?; Dunkley Lumber; the Central Interior Logging Association; the Interior Logging Association; the Northwest Loggers Association; the First Nations Summit; Kalesnikoff Lumber; Pope and Talbot; Kootenay private land owners; the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association; Wyndell Box and Lumber; Meadow Creek Cedar; Atco Lumber; Jones Ties and Poles; Selkirk Forest Products; Tembec, mill and timber; TimberWest; Interfor; Central Interior Wood Processors Association, including Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products, Canadian Woodworks, All-Wood Fibre, TGR Wood Products, Highland Woodworks; B.C. Federation of Woodlot Associations; B.C. Association of Value-added Wood Processors; the IWA; Gorman Bros.; COFI South; Northern Forest Products Association; COFI North; B.C. Council of Resource Communities; Brascan; Doman; NorskeCanada; Lakeside Pacific Forest Products; the UBCM resource committee; the Northwest Loggers Association again; L&M Forest Products.

That's a partial list of the discussions that took place. In addition to that, there were stakeholder meetings in Campbell River, Castlegar, Grand Forks, Cranbrook, Fairmont, Prince George, Kelowna, Terrace, Vanderhoof, Prince George again — literally thousands of attendees. Yes, a variety of opinions — some advocating what has been presented here, others advocating slight changes and some advocating something very different.

It is time to get on with making the difficult choices. It is time to get on with setting in place a structure that will help British Columbia's number one industry right itself and place itself in a position where there will be a degree of stability — and certainty for the heartland communities.

Yes, previous governments have refused to address those difficult issues — I suppose hoping they would go away. They haven't gone away. They're here, and we need to deal with them. We need to deal with them as per the legislation that is before the House, and I am going to urge the House to provide us with the authority today to move ahead with revitalizing B.C.'s number one industry.

P. Sahota: I rise to support Bill 29. Unlike the bleak picture painted by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I am feeling quite optimistic about this legislation, because I know this is what is required to create the type of economic opportunities that are needed in the forest industry and to create an industry that is globally competitive and has high environmental standards.

Most of us know that forestry isn't just an issue about the heartlands. It affects all of us. While my constituency doesn't have the sawmills that some of the heartlands members can boast of, it is still a place that depends on the revenues from the forest industry. Although I now have the honour of representing Burnaby-Edmonds, I'm also happy to note that I grew up in the interior — Merritt, British Columbia — and my father worked in the forest industry for close to 30 years. I also made a living in the forest industry for a number of years.

It is clear to me that the well-being of this industry is important to all of us. Furthermore, for those who think that Burnaby is a place that's without any forestry activity, I'm happy to note that this is not true. Burnaby is home to Tiger Wood Products, which has grown from a small wood wholesaler to Canada's largest distributor of lumber and building products, with annual sales approaching $1 billion. The revenues for 2001 were reported at $854 million with 317 employees. There are other wholesale lumber firms, retail firms and value-added firms — plants like Haida Forest Products, which the minister toured last year and heard their concerns, especially the impact of the softwood lumber dispute. As the minister knows, they are at a disadvantage because they get hit twice with the duty.

When I speak to these people in the forest industry, although they're concerned with the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, they're also optimistic about the forestry reform package the minister introduced this session. At the heart of this entire forestry package, it

speaks to creating more economic opportunities, revitalizing an industry whose revenues have fallen $600 million, and creating stability and certainty for forestry workers around the province.

Bill 29 focuses on delivering this. It speaks to a number of issues, and I know the minister has mentioned those earlier in his remarks. It talks about changes to cut control requirements, and the minister went into details about this. It's really about: why log if there's no market for it? Why be forced to log in a poor market? Licensees will now log when it makes business sense to do so, and they don't have to fear losing their harvesting rights. And I say this only makes sense.

This legislation also repeals appurtenancy and timber-processing requirements that forced licensees to process timber at specific sawmills. This will allow the value of the timber to be maximized, but the timber still has to be processed in British Columbia. This bill also says that the licensees no longer require the consent of the Forests minister if they want to subdivide or transfer their licence.

When the minister spoke earlier, he talked about the bureaucratic process that was required, but as he said, we're about to simplify this. I think this is good news. It's also good news because there are mills in this province that aren't operating right now because of lack of fibre, because they don't have any fibre. I know this particular change is an obstacle. Once it is removed, we hope this will create more opportunities and allow for new players to enter the market.

The opposition leader talked earlier about the lack of consultation, and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant also talked about the lack of consultation and the disagreement on the outside. But as the minister has pointed out, we have done extensive consultations. We have met with first nations, the First Nations Summit, community representatives, environmental groups, IWA, and major and minor licensees across this province.

If we are to improve the condition of the forest industry, these are the right steps. I know there are those who question whether these changes will take a step back, but as the minister has also said, this is defensible legislation. When one looks at it, it is clear that the policies that exist now, such as appurtenancy and timber-processing requirements, did not stop the closure of 27 mills in the last five years or so. Thirteen thousand people have lost their jobs in the forest sector since 1997, and none of these provisions stopped the job losses.

We need to protect our communities for the long term. This legislation is needed to sustain our small communities in the heartlands. It will help create new opportunities for the first nations and build partnerships for the first nations and communities around the province. Workers in the industry know that these changes have to be implemented if we are going to renew and ignite the forest industry.

The forest revitalization plan is about creating new opportunities, opening up new markets and ensuring sustainable environmental practices. I believe these significant changes are focusing on securing a prosperous and sustainable industry for all British Columbians. I am proud to support this significant piece of legislation.

P. Bell: I wanted to start out my speech today on Bill 29 by correcting some information that the member for Vancouver-Hastings said earlier today. She stated that Canfor had closed two mills last year. I have just gotten off the phone with Canfor, and they have confirmed to me that no Canfor mills were closed in the province in 2002. In fact, they further confirmed for me that the last time, prior to 2002, that Canfor actually closed a mill was in 1998 when they closed two mills. And the changes that are being brought forward here today are exactly addressing the issue of why those mills had to close back then.

Change is necessary. We have to move forward. In the last five years 13,000 jobs were lost and 27 mills were closed in British Columbia. Even more importantly, in the last five years we have lost one-third of the direct revenue that is generated in this province through forestry. That's $600 million that could have been spent on health care. That's $600 million that could have been spent on education, but that revenue is simply gone.

The status quo simply is not good enough anymore. We cannot allow some members to try and hoist bills like this — move them back six months. How many more jobs will be lost? How many more mills will close? How much more revenue are we going to lose as a result of trying to move a bill like this back?

I think it's extremely important to note that we have come through a very dark period in forestry. I recall, not that many years ago, the previous government brought forward something called the jobs and timber accord, with all these promises of 40,000 new jobs, new opportunities. What happened? What happened to all that — 13,000 fewer jobs as a result of the so-called jobs and timber accord? Clearly, it did not work. I think this minister and this government have made a very bold and gutsy decision to move forward and revitalize this industry. That's what this bill is all about.

Something that certainly I have heard about over the years throughout the forest industry — and most specifically, interestingly enough, in the woodlot sector — is the ability to transfer tenure. Part of this bill directly addresses the issue of transferability of tenure, and most specifically with woodlots.

I have two friends — or three in the family, actually — in Prince George. The two woodlot owners are currently, I believe, 82 and 79 years old. They want to get out of the business. They don't want to be involved in woodlots anymore. Yet up until today, we've required that of them. They're almost ready to retire. Actually, on Myles Perry's seventy-fifth birthday, we were asking him when he was planning on retiring. He said he had about 25 more years of work to do. He's still chugging away.

Here are these couple of gentlemen who are getting up in their years. They'd like to get out of the business, but they simply can't. There was no mechanism up until now for transferability. So they certainly welcome this type of legislation. I think we've had this picture painted of the big, dastardly company who was going to sweep through the industry and destroy the province. In actual fact, I can tell you that these fine old gentlemen up in Prince George will certainly welcome this legislation. It's valuable to them.

Part of this legislation speaks, certainly, to the issue of transferability. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. I have a series of questions I'm going to want to ask during committee stage of this bill around that process — how that's going to work. Certainly, I'm excited about it. I think it's good news for us.

I think the notion of subdivision also is valuable. I know in European countries there are woodlots as small as four or five hectares. As I have said in this House before, there are some woodlot owners I know who have their trees individually named. That would be considerably easier if you only had four hectares, but the opportunity is there to develop smaller woodlots as well as larger woodlots. I think we need to show that flexibility and meet the needs of the individuals who are interested. In addition, consolidation of licences makes a tremendous amount of sense.

This bill also speaks to the issue of cut control. This is very, very important in my view. In previous years we have required licensees to harvest when it hasn't been economic. That simply has not worked for the industry. They've had to sit on large inventories, and it's been very, very costly for them. In fact, to a degree, the coastal industry suffered through that process. As a result of the carrying costs of money, they were unable to reinvest in their industry and their mills and keep them as efficient as they needed to be. That clearly is part of the challenge they're facing — carrying excessive inventories.

I think the relief from cut control makes a lot of sense, but this isn't a giveaway either. We're not saying to the licensees that you can keep that wood forever — that you can continue to roll it over and roll it over and roll it over. In fact, some would argue that this piece of legislation is more aggressive in terms of its stance on the positioning of carry forward. I actually think that's a good thing. I think if you have some wood, and we allow you a five-year period to cut that, if the end of the five-year period arrives…. There's been this kind of notion of allowing people to carry it forward in previous years. I think the approach that the minister has taken has been a very good one in terms of drawing a line and saying: "No, if you're not going to cut the wood, we're going to take it back." I'm sure that will be very helpful in terms of the development of a new market pricing system as well, because it will give us more fibre that we can sell competitively.

The appurtenancy requirements. There's been this tremendous fear out in the world over appurtenancy. I believe there's something in the order of 11 or 12 mills in the entire province that are covered by appurtenancy.

I attended the North Central Municipal Association last week, and this was one of the first things that came up in the discussion. When the minister asked the mayors and councillors if they knew which mills in their area were actually covered by appurtenancy, none of them knew the information. To a large degree, that was the result of some of the fearmongering that's been going on around the appurtenancy issue.

I can tell you that in the NCMA area, which basically starts at 100 Mile House and goes north, there are actually only three mills that have any appurtenancy requirements at all, and most of those are out in the west end, in the Prince Rupert–Terrace area. There is one at Chasm, slightly south of 100 Mile House. You could argue that perhaps there are four in the northern half of the province, but I would argue there are three. So appurtenancy is not an issue. It should not be a concern for the vast majority of people, and it clearly didn't prevent any of the 27 mills that did shut down from shutting down. It may have been a warm blanket, but it accomplished nothing over time.

Some of the other key components, I feel, about this bill are really opening up the notion of log markets, creating the opportunity to transfer tenure, creating the opportunity to sell more volume from undercuts and the ability to allow licensees to cut when it is most appropriate to cut. But ultimately this is about growing trees faster and better. I think that's the important thing that we need to discuss here. The minister has removed the link between the sawmill and the folks that actually harvest timber, and that is something that should have happened a long, long time ago.

Industry has moved to a far more specialist orientation, as opposed to the generalist orientation of the past. Industry now tries to focus on doing one thing extremely well, and that appears to be what successful companies do today. The day of large companies that did many, many different things appears to be over. This creates that opportunity to focus on one significant part of the business.

I want to talk about a couple of specific companies in my end of the world. Two companies that have very small volumes of tenure and rely on purchase programs, by and large, for the majority of their volume are Dunkley Lumber and Carrier Lumber. Both of those mills have about 30 percent of their volume under tenure. They purchase about 70 percent of the volume. As a result of that, they've been able to constantly reinvest in their mills. They've been able to update and upgrade their mills on an ongoing basis, because they actually operate like the market operates. They actually sell wood when it makes sense to sell wood. They actually harvest when it makes sense to harvest, and they purchase wood when the opportunity arises.

I can tell you that both those two mills are regarded very, very positively by harvesting contractors in the north. They are actually the companies that people would choose to work for, given the opportunity. I

know many individuals in the woodlot sector, in the small-scale salvage sector and in the market, and loggers who sell to these companies on an ongoing basis, and they certainly appreciate the way these companies have approached their business.

Interestingly enough, both of these companies have been able to keep and maintain the most modern sawmill facilities in my end of the world, virtually. At the same time, they've run on a consistent basis. Neither of those mills has taken any downtime, aside from upgrading their facilities, that I recall in the last two or three years. Yet the mills with large volumes of tenure that were not relying on purchased wood were unable to maintain consistent operating periods. They were taking downtime. The notion that attaching tenure to the mill will provide for consistent employment I do not believe is accurate, and certainly both Carrier Lumber and Dunkley Lumber demonstrate that.

Our future is very, very bright. I want to talk very briefly about the notion of area-based tenure, because I think that's very important and I know that's a direction this government wants to move. The Dunkley Lumber company that I referred to earlier has a TFL that is an area-based timber licence. Originally, when they acquired that licence, they had an annual allowable cut in the order of 153,000 cubic metres. They have nurtured that TFL, and they have grown that TFL. They're growing trees faster, and they now replant even areas that were roads from the past to minimize the amount of insufficiently restocked area. They've grown their AAC from 153,000 cubic metres to 240,000 cubic metres just in a relatively short period of time off the same land base. I think this really speaks to a company that's aggressive, a company that is specializing in growing trees as well as lumber, but the whole notion of their focus on that land base I think demonstrates the ability to grow our AAC and be more productive with our lands.

Moving on, I want to talk about some companies that I believe are very visionary in their approach and are willing to invest in the province of British Columbia based on the legislation that this minister has brought forward. When I look through the list of companies in my area, it's very interesting, because we haven't seen investment of this type in the Prince George area in the 14 years that I've been there. In fact, the industry has been in decline for 14 years. There have really been no new operations that have started up — no new mills, no new producers, no new value-added plants.

When I look around in my area, I can start counting them off, and I need more than both my hands to count. I'd have to move to my toes, and it's been a long day, so I think I'll leave my shoes on. Certainly, Brink Forest Products is a good example. They, as the minister said earlier, are doubling the size of their facility — substantial new employment in the order of 90 to 100 new jobs in that facility. That will be opening up this spring.

The Prince George sort yard just purchased the old Netherlands Overseas mill in conjunction with Dollar Saver Lumber. They're doing a joint venture to restart that operation. There are likely going to be 40 or 50 new jobs in that.

In Fort St. James the Canfor mill has added a third shift. There are another 40 or 50 jobs there. The minister doesn't even know this yet, but I was just approached the other day by an individual who is very interested in investing substantially in Fort St. James and building an entire new, specialty value-added facility targeted at quite a unique marketplace — a marketplace that has not been utilized fully. It's an investment in the order of $30 million, creating literally 100-plus new jobs, and that is a direct result of this legislation.

The fellow was in my office last Friday. He sat down, and he said: "I've seen this legislation. I know what it's about, and I want to make this investment." This guy is a credible guy. He's got the money to back it up.

P. Bell: He will make it public, I'm sure, as time goes on. We won't say who it is or what it is or how the product is, but I am pleased to say that's certainly on the boards.

I think beyond that, the Cheslatta sawmill that the minister speaks of on a frequent basis…. He and I were afforded the opportunity to cut the ribbon out at Cheslatta, I guess, the better part of a year ago or not quite a year ago. I know that is a significant investment. They're looking at adding a second shift out there and increasing the number of jobs out there.

East Fraser Fibre has purchased an old value-added plant in Williams Lake that was one of the casualties of the last government and has reopened that for another 40 or 50 jobs. West Chilcotin Forest Products has a nice little operation down in Anahim. The Ron brothers have opened a birch sawmill in Prince George. Mac Anderson has opened up a value-added facility. He's making landscape ties out of peeler cores.

I can literally go on and on and on. There are many, many, many. These are all new facilities, new investments, and they're a direct result of this minister's willingness to move forward and create a market-based system that actually puts forestry where it should be. Ultimately, when you have a system that truly operates on a market basis, I think you have a very strong industry that has the ability to survive for a long time.

There are lots of first nations groups out there that support this initiative and this minister's hard work. Certainly, I mentioned Cheslatta earlier on — the Ulkatcho first nations, the Necosli first nation. Mcleod Lake is very supportive of the direction the minister has taken, and the Lheidli-T'enneh as well. Those are all just in my area. I've personally spoken with all those individuals or chiefs. They've indicated their support.

There are other first nations that are very eager and interested to take part in this economy. I met with two that are in my area about two weeks ago. The Tsay Keh

Dene and Kwadacha are both very eager to participate in this new forest economy that this minister is creating. They see significant opportunities for them to start building capacity in their villages and moving forward.

Just in closing, I am very, very pleased to support this legislation. Speaking from the perspective of a heartlands member, I can tell you that this means a tremendous amount to Prince George, to Mackenzie, to all of the small communities in my end of the world. I believe it's going to re-create the wealth structure we had back in the sixties and early seventies and allow us to regain the stature we had, reopen our schools and develop the health care systems we want, as a result of this new forest policy.

I'd like to congratulate the minister and thank him very much. I wholeheartedly support every component of this bill.

R. Harris: I stand to speak in support of Bill 29. I have to admit, when I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition…. I always try to gracefully look for something in what she says that I agree with. Today I found, finally, the comment that resonated with me, and I thought, she's bang on. She said this bill is about jobs, community and the future. I couldn't agree more. That's about where it ends. This bill, in fact, very clearly talks about building jobs and strong communities and actually starts to paint a future for communities like mine and, I think, all forest-dependent communities.

She talked a lot about trying to legislate prosperity. It reminds me of Skeena Cellulose in my riding. There was a company that — when I look at the community that now doesn't get any taxes from it — thought that cut control, which was covered in legislation, ensured that they would always have access and the company would always run. The people that worked at the mill thought union seniority would ensure that their jobs were there forever and they'd always be going to work. The Bill 13 contractors who worked those tenures continually used to say that those Bill 13 rights ensured that they would be logging whatever that volume was, year in and year out.

What everybody lost in the equation was that at the end of the day, if the company's not profitable, it really doesn't matter what rights you have or what legislation is in place; the company's not going to be there tomorrow. You can't legislate prosperity. If it was that easy, it would have been done long ago by politicians long before our time, and our need to be here probably wouldn't even be there.

I was thinking of a comment I heard at a political science class once, where they said that politics was the obstacle to having a rational conversation about anything. I listened to that member's comments, and it just resonates with me. She talked about consultation. No, she talked about the lack of consultation. For a year and a half we've been talking about these reforms in this province. There was a paper that went out a year and a half ago, and the bills and the groupings of bills we see in front of us today are significantly different from those documents. They're different because we consulted. That minister consulted. He went out and talked to every group. If you ask people in my riding, they would actually say it's taken too long to get here.

R. Harris: They got tired. That's the point. Look at him now. Can you blame them?

The point is that as much as I have been as impatient as those forest-dependent workers and the contractors in my community that we haven't got moving quickly enough, the fact that we took this kind of time frame is important so that when we finally get the legislation out there, it is the right thing. It does, in fact, deliver the kind of future that I think all of us want.

For me, Bill 29 continues an overriding theme of creating access points. That's what this industry is about. If we're going to move it forward, we've got to start to create more access points for people in this industry, so we can start to draw more players into the game, so we can expand the opportunities. That's what this bill does. It's another part of that.

Transferability of licences is an important part of that. Value-added operators need the opportunity to go out there and find fibre and have another vehicle, aside from the other legislation, so that they can actually get access to it. That's a pretty important piece. Whether it's salvage operators or first nations communities or the people in my riding that work in the small business program, they all need opportunities to get access to fibre. This bill just continues that process of opening the door.

It isn't about consolidation, as the opposition would have us believe. It is actually about opportunity. That opportunity only happens when you open the doors. This bill does that. It does that in a number of ways.

We've listened to members talk about appurtenancy. It is about getting the right log in the right mill, making the right product. It's not that you're not going to have a sawmill in your town anymore; it's just that your mill may do something different, something that's a lot more value-added and that actually adds a lot more security to your future. It opens the door to innovation and opportunity.

We talk about how you increase those access points and log yards. I know a lot of people, when they hear the words "log yard," immediately transpose them to interpret them as log exports. That's not what log yards are about. Log yards are about providing a vehicle by which people that want to make something completely different have access to timber. That's been the barrier in the past. It's been the barrier that has brought this industry…. It created the inefficiencies today that, in fact, talk about the losses the previous member spoke about — the 13,000 jobs, the 27 mill closures.

This bill is a good bill. It does paint a good future and starts to create a platform from which rural com-

munities can start to rebuild. It's going to unleash opportunities for people to really start to look at the forests differently.

I think the minister needs to be commended on doing a good job of putting this together, especially doing a good job of consulting. I think it's the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. I am very pleased to be able to stand today and support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 29. The Minister of Forests closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to all of the members of the House and my colleagues who have participated in this discussion. I am obliged to them for their ideas, observations, the perspectives they bring — whether it is from the northwest of the province in a community that is surrounded by forests or in the lower mainland, where the processing sector is perhaps slightly better hidden but every bit as significant to the hundreds and probably thousands of people that are involved in forestry in the community of Burnaby and elsewhere around the province.

As I think about the discussion that will follow at the committee stage, I know there is a series of questions that my colleagues in the House will have and members of the opposition will have, and that's good. That's what this exercise is all about. Legislation as complex and comprehensive as this, representing change on the scale that it does, deserves to receive scrutiny — close scrutiny — and it will. It has, and it will continue to do so.

I wanted to take just a moment, though, to share a couple of observations around some of the comments that the members of the opposition have made in their fairly lengthy remarks to the House today. One of the things that they dwelt upon with some degree of passion was this notion of the social contract. It is a term that arises in some of the documentation that they referred to and in some of the commentary that I have heard and observed around this issue.

It's an interesting term. What I think people are referring to, in part, is this notion that we have over the years, within the province of British Columbia, utilized forest policy, forest laws and forest statutes to weave something of a forestry social safety net that is designed to afford people a degree of protection that wouldn't otherwise be there.

I suppose you can say, when you look at some of the policies that have developed over the years, that there is an element of truth to that. The question you have to ask relates to the effectiveness in the year 2003 of that forestry safety net. If you go to these towns in the heartlands of British Columbia where mills have closed — 27 or 28 of them — and if you go to these centres where there are facilities but no fibre to feed them and employ people, you have to ask yourself and you have to, in my view, conclude that if that forestry safety net was ever effective, it is today, in the year 2003, full of holes. It is not accomplishing its stated objective. We need to fix that. We need to have the courage to address that issue head-on, and it is something that we have shied away from for a number of years in British Columbia.

The opposition members — in particular, the Leader of the Opposition in her comments — referred at a number of junctures to the relevance of the ongoing trade dispute with the United States. It is undoubtedly having an impact on the performance of our industry, and it is undoubtedly having a negative impact on the performance of the industry. It is having an impact on the price of the products we produce, what we are able to sell them for. It is having an impact on the behaviour of companies, given the application of the anti-dumping rules and the manner in which that is calculated. All of those things are true.

The Leader of the Opposition articulated a view out there that this represents nothing more than a grand attempt…. I think the word she used was "appease." This represents, in her view, nothing more than a grand example of appeasement.

I have said before and I will say again that it is not the case. I have said before and will say again that the test these policies need to meet is whether they represent sound domestic policy.

What troubles me more than anything, particularly given the nature of the debate that has taken place here today, is that when we adopt the position that the Leader of the Opposition appears to have, we risk using that trade dispute as an excuse for doing nothing. We risk hiding behind the fact that there is a group in the United States who are applying unfair trade sanctions to British Columbia and Canada. We risk hiding behind that as an excuse for doing nothing, on the basis that anything we do somehow represents an attempt to appease those U.S. protectionists.

That, in my view — as tempting as it might be to use that trade dispute as an excuse to avoid making the tough decisions that need to be made — would be a colossal mistake. We're not going to use that trade dispute as an example. We're going to get on with making those tough decisions on the basis of what makes sense for British Columbia.

When I said earlier that I thought it was a thoughtful debate — although I disagree with much of what I heard, perhaps most of what I heard, from the Leader of the Opposition — it occurred to me that what we really heard here today were two very different views around the management and the role for the state in the management of B.C.'s forest resource. I think and I know that British Columbians expect any government they elect to ensure that the forests they own — that is, the people of B.C. own — are properly protected and managed.

It seemed to me that the vision which the Leader of the Opposition articulated in this discussion goes far beyond that and speaks to her belief — or some people's belief, at least — that really, the government, the state, the Crown has a role that should extend beyond the protection and management of the forest resource

to running the business of forestry. That is not a vision that I share, and it is not one that of late, at least, has served this province very well. This notion that government should place itself in a position statutorily where it is picking the winners and losers through an allocation process — which is often tied, and has been in the past, to political considerations instead of economic ones — is a strategy that isn't destined to fail; it has failed.

I know that at this point in the debate we often find ourselves at a stage where the opposition leader provides her criticism, as it is her duty to do, and the government member, member of the cabinet, stands up and lobs back at the opposition leader: "Well, why didn't you do it when you were in office?" Well, we don't actually have to ask that question, and we don't have to issue that challenge to the opposition leader, because in fact — and I don't mean this in a mischievous way — the previous government did do something.

They did something that really, at its heart, represented the public policy manifestation of what I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say earlier today when she talked about going further — to tying access to fibre to the performance of certain government objectives. Mr. Speaker, that was the jobs and timber accord. That was that vision. It was the vision that said we can direct the behaviour of this industry from this building in Victoria.

They are competing visions. The member may have reasons for wanting to revive that vision today, but the evidence through four years was that the strategy failed miserably. The 40,000 new jobs turned into 13,000 lost jobs. So if we're on the ledger, we're 53,000 to the negative side.

I actually think it is helpful to have the kind of discussion we had in the chamber today, where people can see, hear and read about two very different visions about the role of the state insofar as our forest industry is concerned. This legislation clearly lays out a fundamentally different vision than the one the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant were articulating earlier. That's okay. That's fine, and people will judge.

The last thing I want to say, and it is returning to the theme that was addressed earlier around reaction and response…. I must confess I'm not sure one achieves a lot by selectively going to newspaper clippings and picking out the quotes that make one's case, because I don't think the people who make those quotes generally do so with a view to being named in this chamber on one side of the argument or the other.

I am acutely aware, having listened to the Leader of the Opposition and having participated in earlier debates on this subject today and in past weeks — and, I expect, in the days ahead — where the Leader of the Opposition will go to great pains to point out the outrage that is being felt and articulated by certain segments of the community…. She mentioned first nations. I do feel compelled to point out that, yes, there are people who have expressed concern, but there are also people who have responsibly articulated their support for the direction that this bill charts.

Mike Robertson is the member and senior policy adviser to the Cheslatta first nation and was quoted in the Prince George Citizen as saying: "The policy reforms are a good first step. Anytime the government considers reallocating resources from multinational companies and putting them back into communities, first nations and small businesses, we think that's positive."

In the Campbell River newspaper, Dan Smith, the chief negotiator for the Hamatla Treaty Society, was quoted as saying: "It's a step in the right direction." But he goes on. I should be fair to Mr. Smith. "We don't know how big a step or how small a step it's going to be, and we'll have to wait and see."

The Ladysmith newspaper. This is in the editorial page — the editor of that newspaper: "The provincial government's long-awaited comprehensive forestry revitalization plan should be seen as good news for British Columbia." Now, I read that because I note also, in some of the metropolitan newspapers, similar reviews — the Vancouver Province talking about the fact that the implementation of these long-awaited changes have a chance of nursing our forest sector back to better health. Similarly, in the other newspaper, the Vancouver Sun: "In short, this package of reforms is long overdue, and we welcome it."

The fact that the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun have come to that conclusion, I suppose, is somewhat heartening, but it doesn't make it so. The fact that the Ladysmith newspaper is prepared to endorse the direction that we're headed in doesn't, in and of itself, make it positive, but it is certainly a far different reaction than the one the members of the opposition would have us believe is the only view being expressed out there.

Bill Downing of BC Wood quoted in the Chilliwack newspaper: "I'm very pleased. Our 6 percent allotment is protected, and there will be more wood going to auction. It will mean potentially more material for value-added companies." Chief Bonnie Leonard of the Kamloops Indian band reported in the Kamloops Daily News: "It's something many first nations have asked for — sharing in resources from our lands." The mayor of Prince George, a guy who knows something about forestry, in the Prince George Citizen says he found the changes largely favourable: "I think it may help us move along in resolution of the issues." The Prince George Citizen, quoting the vice-president of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Sutherland: "The B.C. government forest policy reform should open up new opportunities in the value-added wood sector."

No one acting responsibly is going to look at reform on the scale that this bill and others represent and offer carte blanche endorsement or suggest that by the mere passage of this legislation, all will be well in an industry that has been suffering for far too long. But thoughtful people, people who represent the communities that are going to be impacted and have been im-

There's a lot of work to be done yet. As we move forward, I'm looking forward to the discussion that I know will take place at the committee level. The members have signalled today, and in the past, some of the issues I know they have concerns about. But other members in this chamber, other members who represent the communities who are directly impacted by British Columbia's number one industry, have also indicated their view of this during the course of this debate and in the lead-up to this debate.

Through the intensive discussions and consultations that have taken place, through the fact that the government has had the courage to address issues that have been ignored for far too long, I believe we have a blueprint here that will help British Columbia's number one industry return to a point where it is attracting investment, attracting reinvestment, creating jobs, creating hope, creating the certainty that B.C.'s heartland communities deserve, require and, with sound public policy decisions, are destined to enjoy once again. It's why the government has introduced the legislation and why I am encouraging all members of the House to support this bill.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 33.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Some of these matters had been settled in reply, but for the record I just want to ask the minister…. Section 29 is what facilities, health boards and that have to provide in order to qualify for payment by the government, but in the change in legislation, several components of what was required are now no longer there. Can the minister clarify what exactly it is that will get the payment and what precludes payment?

Hon. C. Hansen: The provision that actually is being removed is the requirement that the individual hospitals would have to have their individual budgets approved by the minister and that they would have to report their financial statements directly back to the minister. What they are now is entities within the health authorities, so their financial accountability is to the public through the health authorities. Their individual budgets each year…. It's not necessary for it to come back to the minister for approval. In fact, it has to be approved by the health authorities, and the health authorities in turn are accountable to the minister.

J. MacPhail: I just want to clarify that the changes — this is Medicare Protection Act — that are putting in new rules — perhaps I could say extra rules — on how hearings are going to be conducted…. These rules apply to hearings for individual practitioners who are being challenged on billings or their own individual practices? If the answer to that is yes, then could the

minister assure me that these hearing rules don't apply to Medical Services Commission hearings around arbitrations applying to the overall sum of the Medical Services Plan or fee structures?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer to the member's first question is yes. I can assure her that these rules apply only to hearings surrounding the individual practice of practitioners and do not apply to arbitrations or hearings involving the setting of fees or other deliberations of the Medical Services Commission.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 33, Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 55

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Hawkins	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Abbott	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Christensen	Bray	Les
Locke	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Hunter

	YEAS — 55

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Hawkins	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Belsey	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Christensen
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY