Hansard — Monday, February 18, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		9713
	L. Krog

Introductions by Members		9713

Reports from Committees		9713
	Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, second report
	B. Bennett

Private Members' Statements		9713
	Climate change and I
	J. Nuraney
	L. Krog
	Real leadership in a time of real crisis
	B. Simpson
	D. MacKay
	Accelerating Surrey's future
	D. Hayer
	H. Bains
	Forestry road safety
	S. Fraser
	R. Cantelon

Motions on Notice		9722
	Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1)
	J. Rustad
	B. Simpson

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		9724
	B. Bennett

Motions on Notice		9724
	Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1) (continued)
	B. Bennett
	H. Lali
	R. Cantelon
	C. Wyse
	R. Hawes

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		9729
	B. Simpson

Motions on Notice		9729
	Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1) (continued)
	R. Hawes

D. Routley: I'm welcoming to the precinct today a group of people who, I believe, are out on the front steps right about now demonstrating for awareness of their issue regarding bariatric surgery and the difficult outcomes — but the very positive outcomes — of that process. A man named Foster Johnnie, an elder from Cowichan Tribes, and his wife Gloria, as well as many others, are in the precinct to bring our awareness to the issues of obesity and bariatric surgery.

B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third session of the current parliament. This report summarizes our annual review of the budgets in the eight independent offices of the Legislative Assembly.

B. Bennett: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

J. Nuraney: I rise today to talk about climate change and the part we can play to mitigate the damage. Climate change is likely to be the defining environmental issue for the generation. The scientific debate about whether climate change is happening is over. It is clear that there is an urgent need to act. The impact of climate change goes beyond the environment and affects security, health and the economy.

The time has come for a decisive action. The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that the Earth's rising temperatures are unequivocal and are almost certainly linked to human activities. In British Columbia we are recognized for the quality of our cities, towns and breathtaking scenery and back country. As our population grows, we must find ways to maintain and improve air and water quality and maintain our natural landscapes for future generations.

Our government has taken a very serious and affirmative role in setting targets for the reduction of gas emissions by 33 percent below the current level by the year 2020. Legislation to support this endeavour is in the works. Business and industry are realizing their role in this initiative and are bracing themselves for changes that may be needed to accomplish these goals. The question now is: what are we as individuals doing to reduce our footprint on this very sensitive issue?

It is simply not acceptable to hold the opinion that someone else will come up with a solution. What am I doing in my day-to-day life to effect change? That is the question. There has to be a strong public engagement component to achieving our goal of reducing impacts on our environment.

Every single British Columbian can reduce their carbon footprint by making simple, everyday choices — for example, leave your car at home. Take a bus whenever possible. Make a policy to invest in energy-saving electronics and household appliances. Switch to CFL and LED lightbulbs wherever possible. Ensure that your garbage is separated in recyclable bins. Use fuel-efficient cars, and reduce speed when driving. Check your tire pressure, and get the engines tuned up. Wash clothes in cold water, and reduce the use of hot water. Use water sparingly. Turn off electronic devices when not in use. Turn down the heat in the night. Avoid plastic bags, and bring your reusable bags when shopping. These are some of the ideas that are easy to implement but that can have a powerful effect in reducing impacts on our environment.

Malcolm Gladwell stated that on playing fields and battlegrounds, challenges that would be daunting and impossible if faced alone are suddenly possible when tackled in a close-knit group. People haven't changed. It is the way the task appears to them that has.

In our efforts to reduce environmental impact, it is also necessary to bring our neighbourhood together. Working as a team can motivate individuals to become more aware of their individual consumption and emissions. This can lead to achieving citizen behaviour change, which is the most challenging part in advancing the environmental protection. If people work together and notice their accomplishment, they are likely to reach out and encourage others to do the same. Smart living

It is interesting to note that the world around us and most countries have now embraced the concept of mitigating impact on our environment. Countries like India, which has huge environmental concerns, deal with the problem at the grass-roots level. Thousands of civil society groups and individuals spread across the country are responding to this challenge without any government legislation. Their efforts are bearing fruit and are testimony to the difference one can make.

Livable communities initiatives require cooperation and support of the municipal level of government to implement plans and strategies to ensure the development of future citizens, and expansion of current ones needs to incorporate essential elements of conservation and sustainability.

Madam Speaker, I would like to end my remarks by reiterating the title of my statement, "Climate Change and I," and leave that thought with the House as to what we as individuals are going to do to avert this looming catastrophe.

L. Krog: I'm tempted this morning to take a few jibes at someone from the government benches, but quite frankly, recognizing that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I think, has always spoken respectfully on most topics in this House, I'm going to resist most of that. He's absolutely right, because the changes that are required are all about us.

The first thing we can do is stay put; that's the primary thing. No bigger airports, no more expansion of transportation routes for automobiles. Try and stay close to home; work close to home; live close to home. That's one of the first things we can do, and that's going to be very difficult.

As an example of how you encourage that, you ensure, for instance, that communities have schools. My colleague the member for Saanich South pointed it out to me this morning. If you close schools, then you force parents to drive their children, or you force them to be bused. Generally speaking, it's going to mean a consumption in fuel and extra transportation.

That is a simple example of how the decisions governments make impact on the communities in which we live. We are talking about facing a brave new world, if you will, a world in which many of the patterns of existence that have been enabled by the automobile will be gone forever, and quite rightly so. I think there are many who think that there will be a great fix, that if we can just find a substitute fuel, we'll continue to be able to rely on the automobile, build suburbs, expand beyond city limits — to do exactly what we've done, which we in North America have come to understand is just a short period of our history coming close to an end.

In my own community of Nanaimo the city has a proposal before it for a massive development at Cable Bay, well outside the urban containment boundary, with strong support in some of the business community and some strong support in city council, but it's bad planning. It's not the way to go, and it's all based on the concept of automobiles to get people back and forth from that centre into the community. At the same time, as the member for Nanaimo-Parksville has proudly noted in this House, the city is completing a magnificent new conference centre designed to revitalize the downtown.

One hand, revitalize the downtown; other hand, build outside the city, if you will. Not logical. Those are the kinds of choices we have to make.

The second most important choice we're going to have to make is entirely about consumption. I come from a home where I heard so much about the Depression that I sometimes used to complain, in language that I won't use in this House, that it's like I lived through it. It is ultimately about making do. We do not have to have a gadget for every task nor the perfect tool for every piece of work, nor the perfect furniture, nor everything designed specifically for the simplest things we do each day.

L. Krog: Or the latest trends, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin points out.

It is about doing with less and stopping consumption, but stopping consumption has profound impact on the way we've organized our society to produce goods. The reason China is polluting is because we buy so much of what they produce. We believe we need it. We transport those goods across half the globe to get here to consume them, because they're made cheaply in China.

We make all of those choices every day by what we do. I thank the hon. member opposite for his remarks this morning and for raising this topic. It is about government, but it's about consumption. It's about us having the courage as citizens and as legislators to say to governments: "We're going to have to encourage a reduction in consumption."

That's going to be really tough for our economy to take. That's going to be the great deciding factor for our generation. Every generation has faced great challenges, and I'm thinking particularly of the western world, whether it was two world wars or a great depression. This is the challenge of our times. The knowledge is irrefutable. The task is before us.

I sincerely hope we have the courage to do it. I'm not convinced we do have the courage to do it. Nor are we prepared as a society to accept the incredible implications of what it means to actually reduce consumption, to change our lifestyle, to live in communities where we work, to not move out into suburbia. Those things are the challenges of our time.

I'd like to think our generation and the generations that follow are up to it, because if we don't do it now, they won't have much of a life to look forward to.

J. Nuraney: I am very happy to listen to the remarks of the member for Nanaimo. Basically, I believe that he does concur with my view that action needs to be

taken, whether it is on an individual basis or whether it is on a community-level basis. Action needs to be taken.

Less consumption, I believe, is the right thing to do. How do we go about attaining that goal? Changes in people's lives are very difficult to make. We are accustomed to a certain level of lifestyle; we are accustomed to a certain standard of living. I believe that it is time that education of our people be undertaken so that they understand the effect of a very large amount of consumption of unnecessary goods that they perhaps do not need, but they have to have it because somebody else has got it. That concept of "Let's do as the Joneses do" has to stop at some point.

I think it is very important that this education about knowledge of the impact that we are making on our environment is very essential. As our member says, very rightly so, the time has now come that we need to act. Government will do what it does in normal circumstances, and the impact of legislation, of leadership, is certainly there for this government to take.

What is more important is that the people, the citizens, need to understand and educate themselves on what they need to do to reduce the impact on our environment. I'm very happy to raise this issue in the House today, and I hope that it will resonate among not only the members in this House but the public at large.

B. Simpson: On November 26 the opposition called in this House for an emergency summit on the forestry crisis. It's an interesting debate to go back and reflect on now that that crisis has deepened, now that more and more communities have had their mills close — more indefinite closures, more permanent closures.

As a reflection on the government's position, the MLA for Prince George–Omineca, who responded to that debate, made the following comments. He thanked the member for Yale-Lillooet for bringing forward the issue, and then he stated: "I think the drama that seems to be worked into this might be a little bit overstated." Now, of course, hopefully, that member has rethought that, because in his area we saw, over November, December and January, a meltdown of the forest industry and mill closures and people losing their jobs.

He also stated that he believed we were calling this an emergency crisis but that he was looking into his crystal ball. He was seeing the highest prices we could have ever seen in lumber, and if that type of prediction going forward comes true, then calling this an emergency crisis was overly dramatic.

The member called for $600 pricing for lumber by 2010. Now, I have searched every analyst's report that I can find, and I cannot find anybody who's that bullish on the lumber market way out until 2012, 2015, even 2020. There's a fundamental problem in the Liberal government's research in feeding that member.

More particularly, I want to point out a statement that that member made on behalf of the government. He stated: "I cannot support the direction that the member for Yale-Lillooet was proposing. I do not believe it would be healthy for the industry to have a debate about its future. I do not believe it would be an effective way for being able to allow for that public input and for those discussions." Then he said: "I believe that there are better ways, that the process is in place and that we have initiated those processes."

Oops. January 18, 2008. The Premier stands in front of the truck loggers convention, and what he says is that the industry is in the deepest crisis that it has ever experienced and that what we need is a seismic shift. He at that point offered British Columbians two things: yet another round table on forestry and more deregulation of the industry, which I will speak about momentarily. I think that seismic shift, hopefully, in the government backbenchers has already occurred as well.

I question, of course, another piece of information that came forward in that debate, and that is the measure of the efficacy of forest policy — the value of forest policies and the number of jobs lost. A number of members during that debate pointed out that 13,000 jobs were lost in the 1990s from the industry and, therefore, that that was indicative of bad forest policy.

Well, if that's the measure of bad forest policy, let me put some things on the record. There's a FERIC study just released that says between 2000 and 2005 we lost 13,900 jobs just from the logging and forestry sectors alone from the land base — 13,900 jobs lost from the land base. Now that is a pretty damning indictment if forest policy is supposed to be measured by job loss.

Next, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers stated that between January 2003 and April 2007 — this is a briefing to the ministers of forests — 30 major processing facilities closed in B.C. and thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. Now, January 2003 is a good benchmark for us, because in 2003 we got the government's forest revitalization strategy. Since then, I have to say, there's not one forest worker or one community in the province that feels revitalized by that plan.

Since 2001 we have seen the collapse of the value-added and remanufacturing sector. It's all but disappeared as a result of government policy. A key supplier to secondary manufacturing stated recently that 70 value-added companies have disappeared from their client list in the last two years alone. That's a scathing indictment, again, of Liberal forest policy.

In the last few months alone we've lost over 4,000 workers, who have either been indefinitely or permanently closed.

R. Hawes: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I want to read something from the standing orders.

I would suggest that the remarks we're hearing here are highly partisan and do reflect negatively on groups of members in this House. As such, I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that this is not within the spirit of the standing orders.

Members, during private member's statements, members are not precluded from expressing a party's position on political issues or policy. What the issue is, is attacks on persons.

B. Simpson: Just a point of clarification, if I could. Does my time restart, or do I continue on the same time?

That's how I understood the nature of my comments and the freedom that I had today. I thank the member for trying to clarify that, and I thank the Speaker for stating the opinion of the Speaker on that. I will continue in the same vein that I was on.

Again, the point I'm making is that if the measure of forest policy, the measure of the success of forest policy, is the number of jobs lost, then the current government has failed on all counts. More importantly, the real question is: how do we advance real leadership in this time of crisis?

Every job lost is a family hurt. Every mill closed is a community that has to go through a painful transition. Again, in a previous debate the MLA for Prince George–Omineca stated that he understands — this is the statement from him — that it is the industry's role, as part of this restructuring, to be able to support communities and to be able to support their workers to get through this tough patch so that when we come out of it, the forest industry will be strong.

We dispute that. That's the fundamental difference between the government side and this side. We dispute that, because we believe that it is the government's role to make sure that the industry is repositioned to do the necessary things.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased to stand today and respond to the notion that was brought forward by the member for Cariboo North of an emergency summit because of the forestry crisis we have in the province of British Columbia.

The forest crisis that we are facing in the province is not a simple one to address. First of all, I think that what we have to look at is the fact that the American market has basically dried up. If you stop and realize the amount of wood we ship south to the American lumber market, it's actually quite staggering.

The fact that the sub-prime rate has collapsed in the American…. We've seen one million fewer housing starts this past year, and the Canadian dollar has risen to an unprecedented rate compared to the U.S. dollar. All of those three things go together to account for a part of the problem that is being faced by the forest industry today.

However, to suggest that the province, the government that's in place today, is responsible for those three items is totally irresponsible, in my view, based on the fact that we don't control the Canadian dollar. We don't control the number of houses being built in America south of the 49th parallel. The sub-prime rate that has collapsed down there has been a remarkable challenge for the Americans, let alone the Canadian lumber industry.

We have to go back further and look at the softwood lumber agreement that expired under the watch of the previous government in April of 2001. When the softwood lumber agreement collapsed and we were into a series of litigation expenditures for the lumber industry, we should remember that 30 percent was the duty that was being collected by the American lumber manufacturers by people who were producing wood in Canada. That was a total loss of about $4.3 billion to our forest industry throughout Canada. That was a huge sum of money that could have gone back into retooling plants throughout the province of British Columbia and throughout Canada generally, but that didn't happen.

When the softwood lumber was signed off on, we actually saw the Canadian government start collecting the revenues at 15 percent, which is half the rate that was being charged by the Americans. After the signing of the softwood lumber agreement we saw a good sum of money come back to British Columbia sawmills. Canfor, as an example, realized $554.1 million in money that was directed back to Canfor. West Fraser saw $284 million come back. Interfor received $70 million, and Western Forest Products received $103 million from that money, which normally was going down to the States.

I suggest today that because of the problems in the forest industry and the price of lumber, what's keeping some of these sawmills going today is, in fact, the money that has now been redirected back to those forest companies by the federal government.

I should remind everybody in this House that the softwood lumber agreement is not a provincial negotiation. That's a federal negotiation. The province supported the federal government in its attempt to reach an agreement — the softwood lumber agreement — and we got there.

We did get there, and thank goodness we did, because some of that money that is now coming back is keeping these sawmills going. It's keeping jobs in those sawmills throughout our province, and that's what's keeping these families together. It's keeping these families together because they actually have jobs they can go to.

Just to touch on the fact about the softwood lumber agreement being a federal issue, the province has no say in that other than to either get on side or argue against the federal government. We can't unilaterally terminate the softwood lumber agreement.

However, under the softwood lumber agreement — which the opposition members have an opportunity to pursue down the road, if they wish — there is an 18-month agreement coming into effect in April 2008 that would allow the parties to terminate the softwood lumber agreement, but either party must give six months' notice. I don't think getting rid of the softwood lumber agreement is going to do anything to enhance our forest industry in the province of British Columbia today.

When I talked about the Canadian dollar being where it is today — on par with the U.S. dollar…. I'd like to remind everybody that years ago our dollar was pegged at 85 cents, and for every penny increase in our Canadian dollar as it reaches par with the….

Member, before you stand, I just would like to review the ruling of the Speaker on private members' statements. While the jurisprudence of this House does not preclude members from expressing a party's position on political issues or policy, it is also contrary to the intent or spirit of statements to use these as a vehicle to criticize or rebut another member's words spoken during other proceedings of this House.

B. Simpson: Thank you for the clarification. I will restrict my remarks, then, to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and some closing comments.

I think the member is actually debating the motion that's coming up and not my comments, with his emphasis on softwood lumber agreement. I would hope that between now and then, he'll go and examine where the 15 percent border tax is actually going, because it's not going to mills and communities. It's going to general revenue, so they get no direct benefit.

In fact, we agree with the member. It should flow back to communities. We've been calling on that for two years now. So I think the member better do a little bit of homework to clarify that before he responds to the motion coming up.

The member made a couple of interesting comments that I want to speak to, because it goes to the heart of what I'm pointing out. The member mentioned that it's not the government's fault that the dollar is up, that the markets collapsed, and that we have a situation in our forest sector where they're producing for a market that does not exist and the price isn't there for them.

Well, that is exactly what I'm saying. Liberal forest policy has driven the industry to collapse to a few remaining dimension lumber producers who are producing dimension lumber for a market that no longer exists.

The value-added and remanufacturing industries have gone. A lot of our forest health activities have been undermined. So the rest of the industry has disappeared at the worst possible time. Policy has made this situation worse than it needs to be. We fundamentally believe that the government has an obligation to take things like the softwood lumber border tax and turn it back into those communities that have been hurt by that forest policy and help those communities through the transition.

I am pleased to say that a few weeks ago we did put forward a forestry agenda that we believe addresses this. We put forward five points, and we believe that if the government starts to move in that direction, we will see a revitalized industry in the true sense of that word.

We need to understand what's happening on our land base. Our data is not good enough to manage. We are operating blind as a result of cuts to the Forest Service. We need to have information about climate change and the implications for forest management, and we need a large green plan — a plan for restoring our forests to health so that we can maximize the value from those forests.

We need to restructure the industry so that it is in the 21st century, not in the 19th century — so that it's not solely producing dimension lumber for the North American market. We need to recognize ecosystem services — the whole range of values, non-timber and timber; engineered wood products — and restore the value-added and remanufacturing sector.

We believe that you do that through competitive tax regime and through the third point — tenure reform. We need to reform our tenure system. Under this government, our tenure system has collapsed so that five companies effectively control the land base. That's the beginning of real leadership.

D. Hayer: A few weeks ago our Premier and the Minister of Transportation announced one of the biggest transportation infrastructure programs in the history of British Columbia, if not the biggest program in Canada. This vision, based on an investment of $14 billion, will change the way we live today and will set the bar for how we get around in our communities for decades to come.

The investment and the infrastructure that it will provide are necessary to achieve what everybody has been calling for, has been talking about and has been concerned about for years: global warming, greenhouse gas production, vehicle emissions, air pollution. This massive plan for transportation will get people out of their cars. It will speed up the current transportation system. It will make life much easier for my constituents as well as those people who live in the lower mainland.

Since I was first elected in 2001, I have lobbied tirelessly for transportation projects to improve the lives of my constituents, the lives of Surrey residents, the lives of everyone who uses the Port Mann Bridge and the lives of people in the lower mainland. This incredible plan by the Premier and the minister addresses my concerns, answers my pleas and, when completed, will make the lives of millions of people much better.

This plan creates four new rapid transit lines and provides energy-efficient, high-capacity rapid bus service and 1,500 new clean-energy buses. That is particularly good news for Surrey residents, since they will be the beneficiaries of much of this transportation infrastructure. In fact, the addition of these new clean-energy buses means that the number of buses currently serving Surrey will double. SkyTrain expansions will definitely assist my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead and the rest of Surrey.

This investment in our future will be a boon to commuters, shoppers and students. As well, it will assist our seniors to travel about the community, giving them much easier access to recreational facilities, social centres and shopping. The extension of SkyTrain from King George station up to Guildford and beyond is excellent, as it will vastly improve access, will eliminate many cars and will be very good for business as well. In fact, it will open up the shopping centre area to many other parts of the lower mainland.

The current program will see the SkyTrain run all the way down 168th Street to Fraser Highway in my riding, providing excellent services to Surrey's major recreation centre in the Tynehead-Fleetwood area.

That line is eventually slated to continue on to downtown Langley to give tremendous connectivity to the fastest-growing area of the Fraser Valley. But that plan doesn't just serve Guildford, Tynehead and Fleetwood. Another SkyTrain line is slated to run south of the King George station and down the King George Highway to about 64th Avenue.

These rapid transit options will save time and money for all Surrey residents as well as their children. It will also allow the children to attend school, attend university, go to work or go shopping quickly and conveniently. This will eliminate the need for students having to borrow the family car to attend classes or having to purchase their own vehicle to get them back and forth. It will simplify shopping for consumers. It will enable people from the Tynehead area, Guildford and Fleetwood to jump on SkyTrain to get to work faster to downtown Vancouver or other surrounding areas.

That means people can get to work quicker and back home to their families without the hassle of traffic. Best of all, it will get them out of their cars and greatly reduce vehicle emissions. Most importantly to my constituents and to everybody else living south of the Fraser, this tremendous SkyTrain system, this tremendous transit plan, is in addition to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, doubling the lanes on Highway 1, the building of the South Fraser perimeter road and upgrading the interchanges, the overpasses and underpasses throughout the Surrey-Tynehead area.

One of the biggest contributors to the vehicle emissions entering our air space is the almost constant traffic jam leading up to the Port Mann Bridge. These vehicles, thousands and thousands of them, sit idle for hours on end, spewing dangerous emissions into the air, seriously affecting our air quality and contributing tonnes of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. Twinning the Port Mann Bridge will get those vehicles moving faster. It will greatly reduce our contribution to global warming.

In addition to the twinning of the bridge, the four-laning of the freeway and construction of the South Fraser perimeter road, the currently under-construction widening of 176th, Pacific Highway, and the widening of the Fraser Highway and Highway 10 will greatly enhance the speed and efficiency of commercial traffic and the daily commuter traffic, thus literally saving billions of dollars in lost revenues and income for everyone.

Highway 1 is the route from our ports to the rest of Canada and the rest of North America. Its importance to national and international commerce will only grow as Asia-Pacific trade becomes more and more the lifeblood of our economy.

It is not just Surrey or those of us who live south of the Fraser River who benefit from this impressive transportation plan. Those living in the northeastern suburbs will be getting the Evergreen rapid transit line, North Fraser perimeter road and link to Surrey, Highway 1 and the Pacific Highway border crossing with the now under-construction Golden Ears bridge.

Plus, in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, we will have opened the Canada line SkyTrain from Vancouver International Airport to Richmond to the downtown area. This link will help my constituents get to and from the airport as well, and most importantly, it will serve the incredible volume of passenger traffic that Vancouver International Airport generates. In addition, Canada line will provide commuter access to and from the airport for thousands of people who work there each and every day.

Madam Speaker, the transit plan is exceptional. When I turn this over to the opposition member to respond, let me leave you with this challenge: how can the opposition not support this vision, a vision for the future? How can the NDP MLAs who represent Surrey not support this and not make it clear to their leader that this is an important plan and that the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1 is in the best interests of their constituents and all of Surrey?

I hope to hear positive support for this entire program in the reply from the opposition. Otherwise, they are not representing the wishes of their constituents. Now I will allow the opposition to respond.

H. Bains: I'm honoured to stand here and talk about issues that are really important to Surrey, the residents of Surrey-Newton in particular, and all of the Surrey residents.

The member talked about the transportation announcement that the government made. Let me say that the title of this statement is "Accelerating Surrey's Future." I was actually very intrigued by that statement.

I thought there would be something new coming to Surrey — some new idea where we could provide the tools to the Surrey residents, who could upgrade their skills and utilize those skills to the fullest of their potential.

What I've seen is another catchy slogan and hardly any substance. It's a repeat of the government's statement that was there before.

When you talk about getting people out of their cars, you need to make it cheaper for them to use the transit system. In fact, what has happened is that we have raised the transit fare in Surrey. Coming from Surrey to Vancouver — $10 now. It's hardly a help to those people who are at the lower end of the spectrum to pay for that transit and to use the transit, coming out of their cars. It's an impediment.

On top of that, the park-and-ride fees were also increased. So on the one hand, we are talking about moving people out of their cars into transit while making transit out of reach. In addition to that, I must say that in order to get into transit, we need a transit system. We need 500 buses in Surrey now. That's what the Surrey city council has identified. We're not getting those.

We need infrastructure. There's no announcement about the Pattullo Bridge. Pattullo Bridge is old, dilapidated and dangerous. It's killing people, and no action from this government to improve or replace the Pattullo Bridge and no announcement to have those 500 buses that we need there now — none.

I believe that the biggest asset of any community or any country is its people. Those people need to have support to upgrade their skills, support to have a communication and transportation infrastructure, and support to have a training centre, research and development. Are we getting that in Surrey and providing that support to the Surrey people? We're not. We're not doing that at all.

If you take a look at the overall programs of this government, they have dismantled the apprenticeship program. This would have been a tool for our young people coming out of school who wanted to upgrade their skills and get into the trades category. That thing is totally dismantled. Very few people are actually completing the apprenticeship program.

We need to provide them healthy and crime-free communities. Are we doing that in Surrey? We're not. I have talked to the folks in Surrey at different community meetings out there. They are afraid in their own homes. They can't sleep. Two o'clock in the morning, Wednesdays, Thursdays, all days during the week…. They need to go to work in the morning. They need to take their kids to school in the morning, but they can't sleep because of all of the hooligans, all of the drug deals that are going on in their neighbourhoods. Is this government providing any leadership in that area? No.

We need to provide help to the businesses, make sure that the businesses are secure and make sure that we are giving them the opportunity to the bigger government projects available to them so that they can provide services and products to those big projects, such as the Olympics and the convention centre.

I'm hearing more and more Surrey business people telling me that they are basically bypassed unless you have a friend or an insider with the government that will get you in there so that we could get those businesses in there.

H. Bains: We need to provide those services, and we need to provide the support to the businesses and to the people. We're not getting that. I think if we want to show some leadership, that's what we need.

Now, we talked about many of the issues that we need to talk about and provide support to our folks in Surrey. If we are really serious about it, then we need to start to think seriously in providing that kind of support that our businesses need, our parents need and the public at large needs in that particular area.

This government, in my view, has failed to provide that type of service and support that we need in Surrey. So I think in order for this member to stand up and keep on repeating statement after statement made by the government is not serving the people of Surrey.

I was expecting that he was going to come back and say: "Thank you for this government that has turned this economy into the best economy in Canada from the worst economy. Thank you to this government that is investing $14 billion in transportation programs, a transit plan. Thank you to this government that is investing almost $4 billion for twinning the Port Mann Bridge and the Gateway program, widening Highway 1."

This person, this member, failed to realize what our government is doing. Somehow this member doesn't realize that when his party was in government, they took this economy from the best economy and turned it into the worst economy. That allowed us to make sure that we don't have enough programs available….

D. Hayer: What I am trying to say is that this member should support the government's vision that is creating more jobs than anywhere else in Canada, support the government's vision, the government's plan, that is going to allow us to invest $14 billion in the transit plan. That is needed for British Columbians. That is good for my constituents. That is good for his constituents. That is good for everybody. That is good for our economy. That will allow our things to move.

This member sometimes talks about the political rhetoric when he should be really standing up for the constituents, standing for what is right and what is needed.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. The standing orders say that you do not attack another person across the way.

I'm trying to say: doesn't this member care about global warming? Shouldn't all members of this House be caring about global warming? Shouldn't they be caring about the quality of our air? Shouldn't all members of the House be caring about the environment? Don't they care about getting the goods and services moving, getting workers to jobs and back home to their families quicker and making sure we have an efficient, effective and safe transportation system?

This plan is great news. It's going to be helping British Columbians. In future British Columbians will say that this was a very visionary plan, and the plan will help many other British Columbians, not just for today but for the long term.

This plan is good for the environment. It's a future plan. It will have a positive role in reducing vehicle emissions and in encouraging our contribution to global warming. I support this plan. I support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. I acknowledge that the Highway 1 widening from Langley to Surrey is very important.

I hope all members of the House, all the MLAs in Surrey, will support that. These programs are needed. They are in the good interest of British Columbians. As our economy is growing, as our prosperity is continuing, we must make sure our transportation keeps up with it. This transportation is good not just for British Columbia; it's good for the whole of Canada.

S. Fraser: I rise today to speak on the important issue of forest road safety. It is very appropriate to be speaking to the issue. It is the number one killer of forest workers in the province, because of forest policies brought in by this government. This year the Auditor General's report came out citing the serious injuries in the forest industry on forestry roads. That has been followed last week by the B.C. forest safety ombudsman's report. No Longer the Road Less Travelled, it is entitled.

I've raised the issue a number of times in the House — in estimates, in members' statements and in question period — regarding the safety of the Bamfield road, which is the main forestry road used by communities within my constituency.

I note that in the B.C. forest safety ombudsman's report the ombudsman affirms what I have been saying repeatedly in the House: "The province should establish a new public highway designation for resource roads that serve as the primary or secondary access roads for communities. The new designation would have clearly defined standards for construction, maintenance, enforcement and be funded and resourced similarly to the public highway system."

That's the number 1 recommendation of the report. This is the Forest Safety Council ombudsman report released just last week. That's one of 17 recommendations. Every appearance now is that the government is not going to take these recommendations seriously. That is cause for great concern.

In my constituency the Bamfield road is the lifeline to the community of Bamfield and the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. It's also the lifeline for travellers to the world-famous Bamfield Marine Centre, the West Coast Trail, which attracts people from all over the world, and of course, the best sports fishing and nature viewing probably anywhere on the planet. So comments made by ministers suggesting that the maintenance is fine because it is little travelled causes concern for me as an MLA who has invited ministers to come on this road.

There's not a small amount of the travelling public travelling this road. The region attracts thousands of visitors every year. At a recent meeting in Bamfield it was noted that 3,500 students travelled that road which is not even up to basic public safety standards — a condition that should be addressed, according to the Auditor General and to the Forest Safety Council ombudsman. We must, because the 3,500 students travelling back and forth aren't university students. Those are middle school and high school students. They certainly deserve a road that is safe to travel. Also, that doesn't include the numerous scientists and post-secondary students who travel that road.

All of the residents of Huu-ay-aht First Nation and of Bamfield must commute on that road from time to time. Thousands of hikers, nature watchers, sports fishers all have to travel that road too. The Ministry of Transportation sends the public to this road to travel to the west coast, to the communities of Bamfield and to Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

The government must notice when a board — an independent, arm's-length board — reports out that they must address and fix the situation. To not do so would make them culpable in future injury and death. That shouldn't be what it takes for a government to act when it comes to public safety.

I attended a community meeting in Bamfield last fall. It was a full house. The entire community of Bamfield came out. It was standing room only, and it was a call to action to fix the road. It is unsafe and not up to basic public safety standards. The Premier and this government promised to radically reduce, certainly, forestry fatalities and injuries back in 2003, yet we have reports saying that forest roads are the number one killer of forest workers. The general public is being faced with the same hazards as forestry workers, and that is simply unacceptable to anyone on any side of this House.

This is not political. This is public safety — 3,500 students travelling that road. That's expected to rise in the next few years to 5,000 students. Children and their parents need to know that the government will ensure that they can travel safely — to basic public safety standards — on the only access road.

The Auditor General's report that came out in January was scathing of this government's policies, saying that cutting of red tape, deregulation, union busting — you name it; essentially, catering to corporate friends — has led to death and injury on forest roads in this province. The Auditor General also stated: "We found no evidence of those responsible for planning being required to make safety the primary consideration." That's the Auditor General.

Safety must be the primary consideration. It must be above profits. Forest workers' safety is essential, and so is the public safety and the safety of the children travelling to Bamfield in an attempt to improve their education by going to the Bamfield marine station. It is fundamental that they should be able to travel that road with safety and to know that it is up to basic public safety standards.

The ombudsman report says that in all of its 17 recommendations in so many ways. I urge government ministers and members to read these reports before making comments they do not know about, and to address public safety as the priority that it must be.

R. Cantelon: It gives me pleasure to rise and respond to the member from Alberni-Qualicum. I want to say that I appreciate his comments were very objective and not directed personally at any members on this side of the House, and likewise, I intend to do the same. I appreciate him raising the concerns for his constituents.

I'm not going to stand here and address the condition of the road specifically and try to tell him that his comments about the condition of the road are overstated, misstated or misguided in any way. Indeed, it isn't a good road, and it is used largely as a public road now to service the Bamfield area for a wide variety of personal and corporate needs out in Bamfield. It's a growing community.

However, I would back up a bit initially and say that to suggest that the ministry doesn't take safety seriously is certainly a misstatement. Obviously, to everyone concerned on both sides of this House, the safety of the forestry workers is of paramount importance. The minister has indicated that, though I don't stand to be here as an apologist for him. He fully supports the B.C. Safety Council — which represents loggers, truckers, the industry and the government — and the work that they're doing to improve safety in the forest. Indeed, while the number of fatalities has reduced in recent years, zero is the acceptable goal. They're working hard to get to that.

Let me come back briefly to the road. It is a common usage of the road that private roads would be used for public purposes. Under this agreement — this one specifically — the forestry company receives $200,000 from the government to maintain and upgrade the road to a usable condition. There's certainly some argument — and I won't disagree — that it is not being kept in a serviceable way. Where I think the member opposite and I may disagree is the approach.

The approach that this side of the House would take is to work positively towards solutions to see if we can't develop alternate mechanisms to negotiate and work with the parties concerned to develop workable solutions. I want to tell the House and assure the House that that indeed is the case. That is now happening.

Robert Dennis recently, as we all celebrated, signed major treaties with Huu-ay-aht First Nations. Five different treaties were signed through his direction and leadership to establish their first nations treaties. Of course, this leads to greater economic expectations and expansions in their area.

Which comes to the road. We're very well aware that negotiations are in progress with first nations and with the forest company and with government to work toward positive solutions to develop and improve that road. I do not disagree that it needs to be done. They have great economic potential, and a road is a key to that. To stand here and say that the road is adequate would be flying in the face of the most obvious facts to anyone who has ever tried to use that road. I'm sure the member would agree.

Our approach is to look positively, to work for creative solutions, to work with partnerships, to work with Huu-ay-aht First Nations, to work with and through the private company, Western Forest Products, who owns the road — it is their road — and to work with them and through them, with the Ministry of Highways, to find ways to improve the road to a standard that is acceptable to all the citizens in the area and the economic aspirations of all those who work out there.

I appreciate and understand the current frustration that the member for Alberni-Qualicum expresses, having met his constituents. But I want to tell him that things are moving, that solutions are underway. We can look to that road being maintained in a new, creative partnership that we would hope would involve the Huu-ay-aht First Nations to maintain the road in a first-class-use condition.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. But it doesn't give me any comfort, and it won't give the residents of Bamfield or anyone who has to travel that road any comfort.

The member suggested that I made a misstatement and says that this government does support the Forest Safety Council. No, they don't. The Minister of Forests stated that in the press. He rejected the report — summarily rejected it — and said: "It costs too much." The Minister of Transportation has said that the road is fine.

That's not what the Huu-ay-aht First Nations have said. That is not what the people of Bamfield said. Working together, yes, is appropriate. The only people that aren't at that table is this government. Huu-ay-aht is at the table. The committee has been struck already. Bamfield is at the table. The regional district is at the table.

The director for the region at Bamfield, at the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot, stated: "We are hostages at the end of this road, and we just have to grin and bear it. Vehicle-damaging potholes, blind corners and blind one-way bridges are just some of the obstacles

residents face in getting to Port Alberni." The 80-kilometre trip takes two and a half hours.

Two ministers of the Crown have rejected the report, so the member's statements are not of any comfort at all. A quote from the meeting I attended in Bamfield where…. This is the inception of the committee. The cooperation that the member for Nanaimo-Parksville suggested should be happening is happening without this government at the table.

This was quoted at the meeting from the Forest Safety Council ombudsman: "Bamfield is no longer a logging town. We have over 3,500 students participating in marine programs and 16,000 man days used by researchers at the marine institute. It scares me — the thought of those school and tour buses on the road each day." This comment was made at a town hall meeting in Bamfield and is not unique to this community.

As with many communities' relationships with their logging roads, the Bamfield logging road is far more important, valuable and useful now to the community than it was when it was first constructed for its original purposes. We know that the purposes have changed, and we know that any changes for safety have gone in the opposite direction based on policies of this government or inaction of this government.

The reason to have an ombudsman and a forest safety council is to address safety issues. So I'm hoping that the member's comments that there will be support for the Forest Safety Council will be reflected by future comments and actions by this government and government ministers.

Forestry has always been a backbone of B.C. It's been a backbone of the economy. It's been a backbone of many of the communities around this province, and it represents about 7.4 percent of the total provincial economy. It employs 81,600 direct dependent jobs as of the 2006 stats, and forestry exports total $13.6 billion, representing over 50 percent of the total value of goods exported by B.C. industries in 2006.

The forest industry does face some significant challenges at current. The high price of the Canadian dollar and the housing crisis that we're facing in the States have added unprecedented challenges to the forest industry. But through this it is the softwood lumber agreement that has really helped to save many communities, many jobs and many companies throughout this province.

Is this deal perfect? No, I don't think it's perfect. No deal is perfect. But I can tell you this: in 2002 there was a 30 percent duty on Canadian lumber's exporting in the States. Could you imagine the state of our forest industry today if we had a 30 percent export tax? More than $4.3 billion has returned to Canadian companies, and much of that has come directly to B.C.

A lot of those revenues have been used to help support companies to do some renovations and expansions, and to help these companies get through these tough times. Yes, we do have some companies that are down. But when you look across Canada, B.C. companies were some of the last to go down and some of the last to take downtime. That's because of the strength and certainty that we have in this province and, in particular, because some of the direct benefits that have come from the softwood lumber agreement.

I'd like to quote something from CBC news on line from August 23 of 2006 that said: "The trade war took a toll on Canadian jobs. Thousands in the industry lost their jobs, including about 15,000 forestry workers who were laid off in British Columbia." That was during the trade war that went on.

At this time, when you look at the benefits that have come from that softwood lumber agreement…. I just want to talk a little bit in particular about some of the companies in B.C. So $554 million back to Canfor, $284 million back to West Fraser, $70 million back to Interfor and $103 million returned back to Western Forest Products. Those companies have used those dollars directly to help keep mills open, to help transition through this period.

They've done it, of course, in the best way they can from an economical perspective. They've had to take downtime. There is too much wood on the market. The housing market in the United States has collapsed back to 1990 levels. There are those challenges that we need to work through, but without that money being returned, without that certainty, there's no question the forest industry in B.C. would be in even worse shape.

One of the reasons why I brought this forward, of course, is that just recently the NDP released their forestry plan through the leader of the NDP. The NDP's forestry plan, when you look at it…. I wouldn't wave the two pages here in front, as the NDP have used in terms of props. Clearly, it's a thinly veiled attempt and fails to understand the complexities of the industry.

At one point the plan suggests that revenues that are collected through the export tax on the softwood lumber agreement should go towards a community support plan. Then on the next hand, they're saying that they're going to look at the abrogation of the softwood lumber agreement and that they'd like to get rid of this softwood lumber agreement. How do you square that equation? Clearly, the NDP have not thought through their plan when they rushed to put this stuff forward.

The member for Cariboo North said, when the deal went through: "This is a bad deal and ultimately hurts B.C.'s resource-dependent communities." That was from September 13, 2006. Once again, from the B.C. Almanac on August 21, 2006, the member for Cariboo North said: "I believe this deal will start falling apart very

quickly." Again in Hansard, April 17, '07: "This deal is a silly deal. It was an unnecessary deal, and it has done nothing for the industry. It has brought about uncertainty."

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The benefit of having this opportunity to debate this motion today is for the member for Cariboo North, who can now stand up and actually talk about the thousands of jobs that have benefited directly — the families that have benefited directly from the softwood lumber agreement.

J. Rustad: Think about a 30 percent…. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast says: "Can you provide an example?" Let me provide you with many examples. I can tell you right now….

When all members are ready to resume and allow the speaker having the floor to speak, it would be appreciated.

J. Rustad: When you look at what would happen to the forest industry under a 30 percent tax, you would see literally not a mill in this province that would be able to function. You would also see that money being held on the other side of the border. You would see millions of dollars being spent on litigation. You would see an incredible amount of uncertainty.

You would not have seen the reinvestment in the industry. You would not have seen the revenues coming to our province, but rather, they would have been left on the other side of the border.

It is clear that the softwood lumber agreement, although not perfect, has brought certainty to the industry. It has brought a framework that the industry can work under. It has allowed for some reinvestment. It has allowed many companies to be able to have some cash reserves to help them go through these challenging times.

It's clear that the softwood lumber agreement has been a huge benefit for this province. It has brought about a rudder, I guess you could say. It has put a rudder in the waters of uncertainty that have come with the high Canadian dollar and the housing crisis in the States.

I look forward to both sides of this House recognizing the value of that softwood lumber agreement and recognizing that without it, our industry would be in far worse shape than it is today. We have a chance to be able to build a bright future, and the softwood lumber agreement is one of the tools that is helping us to get there.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, you're just keeping with the great tradition that has started since I came here of repositioning me on Vancouver Island. I've had many talks with my wife about that. She still wants to stay in Quesnel.

I appreciate the member raising this issue. I find the motion rather nebulous, though — that the House supports the importance of the softwood lumber agreement. I'm thankful that the member raised some points of clarification so that we know the context for the debate.

I have to say, though, that I find the member's comments troubling. I will state categorically that I believe the member and the government need to bring forward data to substantiate what the member has said today.

First of all, I find it curious that the tax that's used as a counterbalance to the 15 percent we have just now is 2002, when it was 30 percent. Right before we signed the deal, it was 10.1 percent — not 30 percent, but 10.1 percent — and we were waiting for some final rulings. Those final rulings could have effectively made that tax go away.

We were in the end-game of the legal proceedings — in fact, to the point that the softwood lumber coalition in the United States had only one recourse, and that was to challenge the constitutionality of NAFTA. That was their only recourse because we were in the end-game. We were in the final wins.

What did this government do? It sided with Prime Minister Harper, who was ramming a political deal down our throats at the time and who was giving us a deal that he would then be in the good books of President Bush. This became a political deal, not a business deal. The proof of that is in the structure of the deal.

The member says that I was wrong to say that it created certainty. Well, tell that to the shareholders of West Fraser and Canfor, who right now are holding $16 million for Canfor in a potential incremental tax liability because we're disputing the surge mechanism in arbitration — $16 million of uncertainty in Canfor's operations and $15 million of uncertainty in West Fraser's books.

We are waiting for an arbitration ruling on how to calculate the volume going across the border and calculate the tax charged to British Columbians. It may not be 15 percent. It may have actually gone from 10 percent and declining, to 22½ percent, if the Americans win the surge arbitration — 22½ percent tax.

The fallacy in the argument that the member puts forward is that when we were crafting this deal, when it was being jammed down our throats, we knew the market was collapsing. All the signs were there that the housing bubble was about to collapse and about to collapse big-time. Instead of continuing and staying the course and winning the court cases and making this thing go through the legal process, what did we do? We signed a bad deal that remains a bad deal to this day.

We introduced uncertainty as to whether the tax was 15 percent or 22½ percent, which remains to this day. We left a billion dollars on the table in the U.S. — $500 million to go to our competitors. That's smart business sense. Give our competitors $500 million to

We left money on the table to pay for all arbitration. So the Americans can arbitrate everything we do in this province with impunity. Why? Because Canadians are paying for it.

Then to add insult to injury, we left almost half a billion dollars on the table for communities and forest health activities — things that we can no longer do in this country and in this province without arbitration by the United States. I said it then, and I'll say it now: we gave up our sovereignty to get this deal, and it is now hurting us.

At a time when we have to fundamentally change the structure of the industry, where we have to have tenure reform, where we have to change our stumpage rates, where we have to do the positioning and repositioning of the industry that we need to do, what do we have? We have a softwood lumber deal that means we have to go first to the federal government and then to Washington to see if we can do it.

All you have to do is ask Ottawa. Ask Ontario. Ask Quebec. They attempted to intervene and to restructure their industry, and they're in arbitration under the softwood lumber agreement. That's certainty.

Lost our sovereignty, gave a billion dollars, wasted all of our money that we spent on legal challenges. Now we have uncertainty in the surge mechanism, and companies are forced to carry tens of millions of dollars in potential tax liabilities that are accruing.

More insidious is the member's statement and the member before him in the previous private members' debates that the money from the softwood border tax went back in to stabilize the industry. I challenge that. I believe fundamentally that if a member stands up in this House, provide the data — put the data on the table — because that is wrong. That is wrong.

The companies that are running today are running today because the mountain pine beetle stumpage is at 25 cents, and they're driving it there. That's why they're running today. If you look at the investment history in British Columbia, the vast majority of the investments were pre-softwood, not post-softwood. Pre-softwood. In fact, West Fraser took its softwood money and invested — no question. I don't dispute that. They invested. Where? They bought International Paper Products down in the southeast United States. That's where they invested.

Canfor. Really, we haven't seen any results to British Columbia from their refunds, and they got the largest refund. Western Forest Products has done some debt repatriation, but they continue to close mills. Where is that investment? Where is this magical investment and the benefit we got? I challenge the member to table that in this House today. Where is the government's proof that that happened? Because it didn't.

Instead, at the worst possible time in the marketplace, which looks like it's down for a long time, we're paying 15 percent border tax that we might never have had to pay if we'd stayed the course. That border tax may be 22½ percent, not 15 percent. That uncertainty remains.

A member opposite on the government's bench, in his own words, stated that aside from the dollar, aside from the market, there's a major problem in the structure of the industry in this province. This is the member for East Kootenay: "The last but most important factor that's troubling the industry just now is the duty payable under the Canadian softwood agreement."

B. Simpson: It's a direct quote from the member's own writing. This is an op-ed by the member that I'm reading directly into the record. "The last but most important factor is the duty payable under the Canadian softwood agreement. Companies collectively chose an option under the Canada softwood agreement that is now looking like the wrong choice."

B. Simpson: That's the member for East Kootenay. "Tembec was one of the few companies that opposed the choice, and it turns out they were right."

What happened to the Forests Minister? What happened to the Premier? What happened to the guy who really negotiated the deal, Ken Dobell, on behalf of British Columbia?

Tembec was right. "Canadian forest companies are now paying a 15 percent duty on all softwood exported to the U.S., rather than the 5 percent duty they were paying when the lumber price was up."

That same member goes on in the same op-ed and asks for changes to our stumpage system. That member knows that we can't change our stumpage system because it would be arbitrated under the softwood lumber agreement.

Is this a deal we can support? No, not on your life. Is this a deal that benefits communities? No, not on your life. Is this a deal that has driven investment into British Columbia? Not a penny. Is this a deal that has kept jobs and mills open? No. This is a deal that we should have never signed. This is a deal that was done at the wrong time in the market. This is a deal that still continues to hurt British Columbia at the worst possible time.

B. Bennett: I'm speaking in support of the motion. The softwood agreement is the best deal possible for Canada and for the people of B.C., and the alternative

to this deal is more pain and more uncertainty for B.C. families who depend on forestry.

As with any agreement between nations or between individuals or companies, no party got everything they wanted, including the Americans. But with this agreement, Canada and B.C. got tariffs removed from lumber going to the U.S. We got billions of dollars in duties returned. We got a seven-year term with a possible two-year extension. We got a ban on the U.S. launching new trade actions and neutral trade arbitrators to provide final and binding settlements of disputes.

The test for any party in a negotiated transaction is whether what they have negotiated is reasonable. As my neighbour from the riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke said after the deal was signed, no doubt to the consternation of his friend the opposition Forests critic: "This deal works for Downie street mill. Downie mill is a critically important part of Revelstoke's economy, and this deal protects the mill's employees. It is my obligation to speak for the mills in my area, and flawed or not, this deal is a good resolution for them."

Even the opposition Forests critic, never one to miss an opportunity to degrade anything this government is involved in, admitted in the House in a weak moment that the softwood agreement, like any agreement, was with strengths and weaknesses. This is a quote from the opposition Forests critic: "I didn't say this is a good deal or a bad deal. A deal's a deal. It has good and bad aspects to it."

This side of the House wanted a fair deal for British Columbia. Our government pushed for and received sufficient assurances that B.C.'s concerns with the softwood lumber agreement were addressed. That includes acceptance of B.C.'s independent ability to establish forest policy in our own province — for example, the market-based stumpage that we implemented after the deal. It also includes assurances around important issues, including six months' notice of termination, a one-year standstill clause after the agreement is terminated or expires, review of lumber produced on privately owned land and review of day-to-day operations by a binational panel.

I think it's worth taking a look back to see what British Columbians actually had at the time this agreement was entered into. The U.S.-Canada softwood agreement expired in April 2001 while the NDP was still in government. They had made no progress in terms of negotiating a new agreement prior to the expiration of that softwood agreement. Twelve months later, of course, the U.S. imposed duties of 30 percent on Canadian softwood lumber, and the war started.

I'd like to read a quote from CBC in 2006: "The trade war took a toll on Canadian jobs. Thousands in the industry lost their jobs, including about 15,000 forestry workers who were laid off in British Columbia." It wasn't only the media who were saying those kinds of things. The industry was pleading with our government to not do what the NDP had done, which was nothing.

John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, February 2003: "Canadian companies cannot withstand the impacts on the market until legal cases are resolved."

To the member's point, the opposition Forests critic, who would like to have us in court spending millions and millions of dollars on lawyers…. I thank him very much — I'm a member of the bar — for the support, but I really don't think that's what British Columbians want us to spend our money on.

As John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, said: "Canadian companies cannot withstand the impacts on the market until legal cases are resolved." That's the industry saying that, not the government.

On October 12, 2006, the new softwood agreement came into place. The agreement ended years of litigation and finally brought some operational certainty to forest companies who were begging for that. The agreement also returned billions in lost revenue to Canadian softwood producers, and that money has gone a long ways towards helping them survive the present difficulties in the forestry sector.

The opposition Forests critic seems to agree with the government that the return of this money was a good thing. So I'm going to quote him again. "I know that one of the drivers for the minister in getting a softwood settlement was getting that cash back for some of those mills there. Without it, those companies are in trouble, and there's no way to sugar-coat that." That's a quotation from the opposition Forests critic.

On January 11, 2008, the federal government returned $372 million to B.C. We were able to anticipate this refund, because we had the good sense to support a fair deal. This agreement signified the end of the instability in the relationship with our largest trading partner. That's good business.

Now this brings us to the present. The NDP recently said: "We will take the softwood lumber agreement to hearings to determine what steps should be taken, up to and including abrogation." Surely the NDP isn't arguing that we should return to the days when twice the amount of current export tax was collected by the Americans and they got to keep it.

As for abrogating the agreement, the opposition should know that international trade agreements are signed by the federal government and are law while they're in effect. The province cannot unilaterally enter the negotiations, nor can we unilaterally terminate them. But of course, that doesn't stop the NDP from going around B.C. and telling people that they can.

The B.C. forest industry has asked this government not to take any steps to terminate the agreement. They do not want to go back to the 30 percent duties and endless litigation to try to get that money back. Millions of dollars were spent on lawyers, and nobody out there, no taxpayer, wants to return to that.

Our forest industry believes the agreement provides stability — very important, particularly at this time. The industry is facing the highest Canadian dollar since the 1970s. Every penny increase in the Canadian dollar means about $130 million a year to the B.C. forest industry. Now, that wouldn't be so bad if the U.S. housing market were healthier, but oversupply of new houses, sub-prime mortgages and their inevitable de-

faults have created the worst softwood market in the U.S. in decades. U.S. housing starts are at their lowest level since 1991.

We have a triple whammy. We have an extremely high Canadian dollar. It comes off directly from the bottom line of the B.C. forest companies. We have a lousy softwood lumber market in the U.S., which means that there are few sales in any case, and a 15 percent duty, which is still only half the 30 percent it was before we had a deal.

Here is what the opposition will never want the public to know. This is what they will never say about this perfect storm of negative factors. Adding yet another extreme uncertainty, the termination of the softwood agreement, to the already crippling factors of a high Canadian dollar and a terrible housing market would just make things much, much worse for everybody — for the companies, for the communities, for the people who work in the industry. It's cynical politics but, unfortunately, very typical of this political party over the several decades.

There's a saying that we cannot know where we are going if we don't know where we've been. I know the opposition cringes in question period every time the Health Minister harkens back to the 1990s. Of course, they claim irrelevancy, hoping that people will not remember their history of mistakes.

The history of the opposition when they were government for ten years illustrates what they would do if they were ever to form government again. Forestry is replete with as many examples of their mismanagement as health care is. They had eight Forests Ministers in ten years. Now, there's stability for you. That's what they would do. Thirteen thousand forestry jobs disappeared; 27 mills permanently closed. The wood product–manufacturing sector shrunk by 3.9 percent, almost 4 percent, between 1997 and 2001, and the coastal forest industry became the highest-cost producer of timber in the world.

There are three reports: the Pearse report in 2001, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report in 2000 and the Restoring British Columbia's Economic Heartland report by the B.C. Progress Board in December 2002. All three of these reports said the same thing. They said that the NDP forest policies decimated the forest industry from Port Alberni to Cranbrook to Fort St. James to Dawson Creek. That's the truth, and the people of this province know bloody well that that's the truth.

Jobs and timber accord — a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. No new jobs to show for that.

The start of the pine beetle epidemic. They ought to be embarrassed about this. They had an ideological aversion to doing what was necessary in Tweedsmuir Park. Think of how things could be different if the NDP had taken action.

The Carrier debacle. The forest renewal shell games they played. The NDP is simply disconnected from economic realities and prefers to believe they can levy taxes and implement burdensome regulation without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Now they want to rip up the softwood agreement and add yet another layer of pain and uncertainty to an already difficult time for forest companies and families and communities who depend on forestry. The softwood agreement between Canada and the U.S. is by no means perfect, but it is the one thing that is stable in the forest industry today.

To those in the opposition who so cavalierly say they would rip up this agreement: they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are putting cynical politics ahead of the families and communities, particularly of rural British Columbia.

I'm proud of the Premier of this province, who puts the people of the province ahead of petty bickering with the federal government, which is the history of the party across the way. That's how they deal with the federal government. They like to bicker and fight and get on the front page of the newspaper rather than get things done.

H. Lali: I rise to actually state my position, which is that this softwood lumber agreement is not a supportable deal, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I just want to point out, Members across the way, that in the last couple of years, as the Canadian economy has turned around and due to forces beyond the control of this Liberal government, the economy of British Columbia has turned around. There isn't a single item that they can point to that would help to turn the economy around, but when it comes to forestry, you hear members opposite say: "Oh, the downturn in the forest industry…. It's not our fault. It's something that is beyond our control. It's the Canadian dollar; it's this and that and the other thing."

But they will not take any share of responsibility to say that they are actually sinking the forest industry in British Columbia. This softwood lumber agreement is a prime example of the abrogation of their responsibility as the government to look after the forest industry in this province. But they're not going to stand up. When there's something good going on: "Oh, yeah. It's us. We did it." But when something bad is going on: "Oh, no. It's circumstances and forces beyond our control." It's shameless when members across the way can't even take the responsibility for their own actions.

I'll tell you, the member across the way is talking about…. "We don't want to pay lawyers," he says. "We don't want to pay lawyers to fight the legal challenge" — a legal challenge that we were winning. He doesn't want to do that, but he's prepared to throw away a billion dollars, leave it on the table so that money could go to our competitors across the border to fight against us. That hon. member wants to leave that billion dollars on the table that our communities could have used on this side of the border in terms of the transition that is needed for small forestry towns.

They want to sit there, they want to thump the desk, and they want talk about how great they are. But the fact of the matter is that 45 sawmills have closed in this province under the rule of the B.C. Liberals in the

last seven years. That is the largest number of sawmill closures in the history of this province, and that government is responsible directly for the failure of their policies. That's the reality in this province.

You know, there's an old adage that when you're going to war with an enemy, never withdraw from the field of battle when you know you're winning. But that's exactly what this Liberal government has done when they actually supported Stephen Harper in the middle of the battle when we were winning those legal fights in the courts. They withdrew in the middle. They capitulated right in the middle, because this Liberal government sided with Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, who was trying to get his own Brownie points with George Bush at the time. It's a real shame that they would actually do that right in the middle of the battle.

So instead of a real softwood lumber agreement that would help our industry on this side of the border, they participated in the sellout of our forest industry to the Americans. They participated in that. One has to wonder why it was that in the middle of the battle they would actually withdraw. But when you look at it, at the same time we had this government in British Columbia, which had been going along with Stephen Harper, sell out to the Americans just so they could get a few more dollars for Gateway and for the Olympics here in British Columbia. That's the real deal.

They abandoned rural British Columbia yet again. They abandoned rural British Columbia, all of those dozens and dozens of sawmill towns across rural B.C. who are dependant for their livelihoods on those sawmill jobs, jobs in the forest industry. This government, by signing out with this bad deal — the softwood lumber agreement — has capitulated to the Americans and abandoned rural British Columbia. And they leave a billion dollars on the table.

We could have used that money. Our forest companies could have used that money to upgrade their machinery, but instead this government left that billion dollars — our portion of it — on that table. So we've got all these communities that are now suffering at the hands of these bad policies, the punitive policies by the Liberals. The small communities are suffering. They can't even get any transition help from this government to help plan for the future of those communities in those dozens of small towns, throughout this province.

I also want to talk about the social contract that this government has broken. Over the last seven years they were able to do that. You know, they removed the appurtenancy clause that actually kept sawmill jobs — those forestry jobs — open in those small communities. When they cut that tie, they allowed companies to arbitrarily shut down sawmills and take the timber with them to wherever and actually eliminate jobs all throughout the province.

They also did away with a 90-day mill closure review process where communities, government, workers and the company were all able to sit down and work out some sort of agreement whereby if the mill was going to be pulled out, there would be some jobs left behind or there'd be a transition strategy that was in place. The minister had 90 days. The government had 90 days where they could work with the government.

But they got rid of that and the 5 percent takeback that was there as well. When the company pulled out of town, they left 5 percent of that behind. That went to small operators in communities. Here we have all remanufacturing outfits in the province, the small business forest enterprise program — which they have gutted — the small-scale salvage operators who depended on that 5 percent takeback or the small amounts of wood. They can't even get that right now.

I was in a meeting about a year and a half ago in Merritt with the small-scale operators and the forestry officials from the region that were there. When the small-scale operators raised the question of why they were not able to get access to wood, the forestry officials admitted that they would actually fall in trouble with the softwood lumber agreement and some countervail from the United States.

The Premier, at the Truck Loggers convention, admitted that our sovereignty is at stake in terms of our sovereignty to make our forest policies — now being dictated to in the boardrooms of the United States.

This agreement has left us at a huge disadvantage. The Americans have the right to abrogate this treaty if they want to, but we don't share the similar on this side of the border.

This is supposed to be the government who tries to pride itself on how we can do business and on how we are the big negotiators. They sell us out by being in cahoots with Stephen Harper's master plan, capitulating to the United States and leaving all these communities out in the cold.

What has happened is that this Liberal government has worked out a bad deal. They know it's a bad deal. Their folks in the industry are telling them that it's a bad deal. Their supporters are telling them that it's a bad deal. Workers, mayors, councillors and regional district reps are all telling them that it's a bad deal. First nations are telling them that it's a bad deal.

But they stand here in this House representing not the interests of British Columbians but the interests of Ottawa and the United States. They are also looking after the interests of those big companies who pay for their election bills. They are not looking after the interests of average British Columbians or forestry workers in this province.

This is a bad deal, and it's not a deal that this side of the House is prepared to support.

R. Cantelon: I appreciate hearing the unbounded enthusiasm of the member for Yale-Lillooet — unbounded, certainly, by any reference to facts or about the issue.

The softwood lumber agreement is something that apparently members opposite would like to tear up. I'm happy to hear that the member for Yale-Lillooet at least acknowledged that it is a federal agreement, negotiated internationally.

But all members on the opposite House that spoke to this issue seem to prefer legal battles in the court. We

had that for many years, where millions and millions of dollars were spent towards no specific conclusion. Certainly there's no question that the industries and the lobby groups in the United States have very deep pockets and were prepared to and did continue to carry on litigation ad nauseam through whatever courts of appeal they were able to access — and there were many — and they would continue to do it.

I would like to raise a couple of points, though, that were mentioned by the member for Cariboo North. He mentioned that Western Forest Products…. All they did with it was to reduce their debt. Apparently, that isn't positive in their thinking. Well, all I can tell you is that if you had any knowledge of how corporations work…. The cost of debt certainly impinges on their ability to operate, which is something the member for Cariboo North perhaps could consider if he were able to do so in considering how corporations work.

Certainly by reducing your debt, you're able to then, Member, divert some of your resources towards keeping things operational. That is absolutely critical, and that is what Western Forest Products has done as much as they can and extended the life of mills. I believe they've opened up another mill south of my area.

These are things that needed to be done. He also mentioned that…. There's a convenient juxtaposition. If the story doesn't fit the circumstances, change the time line so it works. Certainly, in 2005 the industry in the United States was humming along. The member opposite for Yale-Lillooet indicated that: "Oh, the Canadian dollar doesn't have any effect." Are you kidding? The Canadian dollar, of course…. Every point that it moves up costs millions of dollars. It's a significant factor.

So we preferred, apparently, to have the uncertainty of spending millions of dollars in endless litigation to the certainty of the forest lumber. In fact, the other point that I would come to is that at the time it was negotiated, there was only a 10 percent tariff. As a matter of fact, if the agreement had been in effect at that time, there would have been no tariff, because the price per cube was at $355, and at that point it would be zero.

The member opposite also indicates that: "Oh, there is uncertainty because it might go to 22 percent." I think if he clearly understood the agreement…. And I know that he does and was extemporizing and taking licence with it. There's an arbitration mechanism in place which was not in place before. So there now is certainty in resolving these issues and coming to agreement.

The United States, as well as Canada, is bound by arbitration mechanisms which were not in place. We simply had an open-ended, endless litigation process going on that would probably still continue.

I could go on, but noting the time, I would at this point move adjournment of the debate.

R. Cantelon: Well, in that case — if I'm too early — I'll proceed, because I have some other significant points that I'd like to make. I think I'd like to comment further that if we don't like an agreement, let's just tear it up. I think we've had leadership from the Premier of this province and reached a very, very positive way in which we can negotiate with the federal government to negotiate terms that are favourable to us so that we can proceed with the federal government in concert and partnership with them to develop treaties.

These treaties, once of course signed by international agreements, can't be casually torn up as indicated by the members opposite. "We don't like an agreement. Tear it up."

Now I'm getting fairly good signs which indicate that while they approve of my rhetoric, perhaps it's carried on long enough. I would now like to move adjournment of the debate.

C. Wyse: For a while I wasn't quite certain what was happening here in the House. When I've listened to some of the debate that I've heard from my colleagues from the other side, I can understand the confusion that abounds on their side with where things are going with this particular discussion.

In coming back to the actual motion that was put on the table that this House recognize the importance of the softwood lumber agreement, I couldn't agree more with the importance of discussing that particular motion put on the floor. It needs to be put into the context of how the Liberal government had in actual fact been setting the table for the backbone industry of British Columbia, as one of my colleagues from the side opposite had mentioned earlier.

We had that social contract that had been put into place looking after our industry for decades — the individual that we all recognize as W.A.C. Bennett. That particular social contract protected the integrity and the communities here within British Columbia. It looked after them. It provided things like appurtenancy, removed by the Liberals; cut control, removed by the Liberals. Tenure became a tradable commodity. The requirement for mill closure reviews or the 5 percent takeback of tenure and changes in corporate ownership. Replaced the Forest Practices Code with the self-policing. Took 20 percent of the allowable annual cut and paid huge compensations to the companies. We have now evolved into a situation here in which we have got the corporate concentration in a few large industries and the collapse of an industry.

The environment within the softwood lumber agreement is now in place. It ended up being put into place, with agreement with the province, when the court cases were moving along and Canada was winning them. The court cases in the United States, in actual fact, had ruled that all the moneys would be returned

to Canada. In the agreement agreed to here in British Columbia a billion dollars was left on the table in the United States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you and I were to count to a billion one dollar at a time, seven days a week for 24 hours, it would take us 47 years to count that billion dollars, to count that sum of money that was left on the table to support the American industries.

My colleague from opposite made reference about the deal being good for Downie in Revelstoke. Sure, that statement was made, but what was left out was that in actual fact a loan guarantee or other supports in lieu of the bad softwood lumber agreement would have been preferred.

When we return to evaluate this softwood lumber agreement, given the environment that has been contributed here by policies, by decisions made by the government opposite, we have ended with a situation where in the interior of British Columbia, rural British Columbia, these communities are in a very, very difficult set of circumstances. No longer are we dealing here simply with the normal rollercoaster of the ups and downs of the economic situation that affects forestry. We receive comments that this rollercoaster has simply become a downward slide. That is within the context that we are discussing the softwood lumber agreement and whether it in actual fact is beneficial.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I turn it over to the next speaker.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery this morning are students from Bench Elementary. They are here to meet with the Minister of Environment and push their crusade to reduce the use of plastic bags in stores in and around our community, in and around our province and right across the world. Would the House please make the kids from Bench Elementary most welcome.

Interesting debate. One of the most interesting characteristics of this debate, in my view, is the fact that when you are in opposition, you can say anything and not have to do anything to bring your words to action. It's real easy in opposition to speak with a bunch of empty rhetoric, but when it comes time to deliver, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it's a whole different matter. These folks in opposition with their interesting comments, frankly, have absolutely no grounding in reality.

The industry has told us clearly not to interfere with this agreement at this time. The industry knows that it's providing some certainty at a very uncertain time in forestry.

I listened closely to the comments of the critic for Forests. I think he is very, very similar in a lot of ways to his leader, who doesn't seem to have any positions either, who jumps from one position to another and has to corrected. I notice that the same characteristic seems to hold true for the opposition critic.

He was and has been quoted — and there were quotes attributed to him earlier today — saying that the softwood deal is a bad deal. Then he goes and says that maybe it's not bad: "I didn't say this is a good deal or a bad deal. A deal's a deal. It has good and bad aspects to it." He said that in the House here on May 2, 2006.

Then he goes on and he says, on the other side of the deal: "It's my obligation to speak for the mills in my area, and flawed or not, this deal is a good resolution for them."

It's a bad deal; maybe it's not a bad deal. Oh, and that was said in the Revelstoke Times.

R. Hawes: The quote I'm attributing here to him came from the Revelstoke Times Review on August 30, 2006. That might help the member as he researches when and where he said that. So unless the Revelstoke Times is quoting, and I notice that it is in quotation marks…. Unless the media has it wrong…. God forbid that the media would ever get something wrong.

B. Simpson: I think the member is actually referring to another member of this House, not the Forests critic, and I ask him to withdraw his remarks.

R. Hawes: Well, Mr. Speaker, the comment that I have here does attribute it to the MLA for Cariboo North. Unless on August 30, 2006, there was a different member for Cariboo North…. I'm suspecting that that's not so.

Were this to be something that wasn't quoted in the Revelstoke Times Review, I would certainly withdraw my comment, but the quote that I have here certainly stands in terms of having been attributed to that member.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that that member, along with other members of the opposition, have been on both sides of this deal. One day it's a bad deal. The next day it's a good deal. Another day it's maybe, maybe not.

It's very similar to the Leader of the Opposition's position on things like the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, where it's a good deal; it's a bad deal; it's maybe not a deal. We shouldn't do it; we should do it. There's no position on things that come from these people. The fact is that at some stage they need to at least advance some actual alternatives rather than just criticism.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.