2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of
 

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 35, Number 6

[ Page 13159 ]
 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Hansen: There are several guests in the gallery this morning that I'd like to introduce: Mr. Mark Startup of Retail B.C., Richard Thomas of Central 1 Credit Union, Bernie Magnan of the Vancouver Board of Trade, Casey Edge of the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia, Robert Laing of B.C. Real Estate Association, John Tillie of the B.C. Real Estate Association, Mr. Brian Bonney of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Jim Storie of the Council of Tourism Associations and David Littlejohn of the Council of Tourism Associations.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

By-Election

Clerk of the House:

November 14, 2008

Hon. Bill Barisoff
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On July 15, 2008, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Gregor Robertson, MLA for the electoral district of Vancouver-Fairview. On September 16, 2008, a second warrant was received after the resignation of Lorne Mayencourt, MLA for the electoral district of Vancouver-Burrard.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I simultaneously issued writs of election for the electoral districts of Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard on October 1, 2008, ordering by-elections be held to fill the vacancies. The writs specified general voting day to be October 29, 2008.

The by-elections were held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writs of election have been returned to me.

In accordance with section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individuals to be elected to serve as Members of the Legislative Assembly: Jenn McGinn for the electoral district of Vancouver-Fairview; Spencer Herbert for the electoral district of Vancouver-Burrard.

Sincerely,

Harry Neufeld
Chief Electoral Officer

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the results of the election of members be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Jenn McGinn, the member for the electoral district of Vancouver-Fairview, and Spencer Herbert, the member for the electoral district of Vancouver-Burrard, who have taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claim their right to take their seats. [Applause.]

[1010]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, and would you please take your seats.

The hon. members for Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard took their seats.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Office of the Auditor General's annual report 2007-2008; service plan 2010-2011; Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 5, Removing Private Land from Tree Farm Licences 6, 19 & 25: Protecting the Public Interest?; Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 6, Interior Health Authority: Working to Improve Access to Surgical Services; Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 7, Home and Community Care Services: Meeting Needs and Preparing for the Future; Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 8, Follow-Up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports; Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 9, Observations on Financial Reporting: Audit Findings Report on 2007-08 Summary Financial Statements; Ombudsman's special report No. 32, Fit to Drink: Challenges in Providing Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia; Office of the Ombudsman annual report 2007-2008; Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's annual report 2007-2008; Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner annual report 2007; Office of the Representative for Children and Youth annual report April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008; and Representative for Children and Youth issue report, Medical Assessments in B.C.'s Youth Justice System.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

economic incentive and stabilization
statutes amendment act, 2008

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

The Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, implements several new initiatives
[ Page 13160 ]
that will keep British Columbia's economy strong and competitive and help B.C.'s families and businesses during these turbulent economic times.

This bill provides the following tax relief measures for British Columbians: amendments to the Income Tax Act to accelerate the personal and small business income tax reductions announced in Budget 2008 as part of the revenue-neutral carbon tax plan; secondly, amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act to create a new program which allow homeowners facing financial hardship and who have at least 15 percent equity in their homes to defer their 2009-2010 property taxes; and thirdly, amendments to the School Act to introduce an industrial property tax credit for 2009 and future years. Owners of major and light industrial property will receive a credit which reduces their school property taxes by 50 percent.

This bill also contains measures to protect the assets of British Columbians. The Court Order Enforcement Act is amended to protect registered retirement savings plans and other similar registered plans from seizure by creditors. The Pension Benefits Standards Act is amended to protect additional voluntary contributions made to pensions. The Law and Equity Act is amended in anticipation of the new tax-free savings account created by the federal government to ensure that the designation of a beneficiary will be honoured upon the account holder's death.

The Financial Institutions Act is amended to provide unlimited deposit insurance protection for depositors in B.C. credit unions. It is also amended to enhance the supervisory powers of the Financial Institutions Commission that is responsible for the regulation of credit unions.

[1015]

Finally, the bill proposes transitional provisions that will modify the way property assessment is carried out under the Assessment Act for the 2009 taxation year. This means that for roughly 90 percent of properties, the 2009 assessment will be based on the value on July 1, 2007, or July 1, 2008, whichever is lower.

Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that said bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 46, the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act. The amendments have been requested by the Vancouver Foundation in order to allow it to continue to provide funding to the charitable organizations that rely on it, despite the current market conditions.

The foundation currently grants money from the dollars that have appreciated on its total assets. Because the current market conditions have resulted in no appreciation, the foundation wishes to take some of that money it has accumulated and create a one-time-only reserve amount that will ensure that these charitable organizations can continue to receive funds that they have relied on.

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

Bill 46, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, from schedule D on the order paper, I call Motion 1.

Motions on Notice

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

(continued)

R. Hawes: I have to go back a little bit in time here. I think that this motion was debated sometime last May. I adjourned debate that particular day without having finished my comments on this particular motion, which is that the House supports the importance of the softwood lumber agreement.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should just wait until everyone….

Mr. Speaker: Will the member just take a seat for a second while members attend to other duties.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard wishes to make an introduction.
[ Page 13161 ]
 

S. Herbert: Mr. Speaker and House Members, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Herbert: I'd like to introduce and welcome my mother and father, Donna Herbert and Ted Roberts, as well as my partner Romi Chandra. Please make them welcome.

J. McGinn: I would also like to welcome my parents, Brendon and Joan McGinn, who flew all the way from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to be here for this auspicious occasion. So my mom and dad — please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission continues.

R. Hawes: Back to discussion on the motion, which is that the House recognizes the importance of the softwood lumber agreement. Just to refresh myself as to the course the debate had taken on the day that it first had been presented in the House — the discussion here — I went back and reread the Blues. It was extremely interesting to read the comments of some of the opposition members, who were definitely opposed to this motion and who spoke fairly vehemently against the value of the softwood lumber agreement.

[1020]

Since that time a great deal of things have happened in our country and in our province. We’ve seen the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in the United States and world economies crashing, and we've seen further deterioration, obviously, in terms of the lumber industry in our province, much of it driven by the collapse of the housing market in the United States.

The question, then, is: in light of today's economic climate, does the softwood lumber agreement continue to be valuable? Does it continue to warrant the support that the motion originally contemplated?

I'd just like to cover those points, then, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost, I'd like to also recognize that we recently went through a federal election, a federal election in which the leader of the New Democratic Party continually spoke across the country about the need to scrap the softwood lumber agreement. If he were elected…. As he said: "If I could form a government, we would abrogate that agreement immediately." That's a position that the Leader of the Opposition here has stated on numerous occasions — that she wants to open up the agreement or abrogate the agreement if it can't be improved.

I go back to the discussion that we had in the House last May and, actually, even before then, when the critic for forestry on the opposition side said in the House in May of last year, to quote him exactly: "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."

Well, that's the fact on just about any deal you can think of that's made anywhere. Normally, when you see an agreement made, you don't have one side that gets everything. You get good and bad on both sides. That's how you make agreements.

I would concur with the critic for the opposition when he says that the softwood lumber agreement has good and bad aspects to it, but in May, when he also then was arguing against the motion that's now on the floor, that member did speak against every aspect of the softwood agreement. In fact, he would not concede that there are any good aspects, which is of course a contradiction to what he had said in the House on a previous day and which is, I do have to say, very typical of this opposition as they jump from one side of a position to another.

You know, there are many, many examples of the Leader of the Opposition, for example, saying with respect to twinning the Port Mann Bridge: "It's something that should go ahead." "No, it isn't." "No, we shouldn't go ahead with it." "Yes, we should." "It's something I can support, maybe not today, maybe tomorrow."

There are no fixed positions with this opposition. They don't seem to recognize that the public and everyone else would like them to at least once state a position, stick to your position and state the principles on which you have built your position.

It would appear, in watching them flip-flop back and forth, that there are no principles behind anything that they have to say. They just make these decisions because…. It's pretty obvious that when you're in opposition you don't have to; you're not expected to live up to anything that you say. You don't have to deliver anything. So frankly, when you look at the positions that the opposition has taken on so many things, it's pretty obvious that even if they were to, God forbid, ever form a government, they could deliver on nothing that they have said.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

The softwood agreement. I just want to point out that the Leader of the Opposition has said many times…. In fact, in the purported package of salvation for the forestry industry that the NDP have put forward, the Leader of the Opposition talks in there about renegotiating the softwood lumber agreement and taking it right to abrogation if necessary. Well, what does the industry say? What do the people who actually have real dollars invested, who really have a future in forestry, say about that? Well, let's talk about, first, Jack Layton's plan to scrap the agreement.

[1025] 
[ Page 13162 ]
 

John Allan, the president of the Council of Forest Industries, said on September 25 that Jack Layton's plan to scrap the softwood agreement "has to be one of the more uninformed views I've heard for some time around softwood lumber."

His position, Jack Layton's position, when you look at it…. If you have a membership in the federal NDP, that is also a membership in the provincial NDP. So basically their positions are synonymous on everything. They're tied at the hip. I would suggest that when Jack Layton comes out and says he's going to abrogate the softwood, rip it up, that's the position that the New Democrat Party would take — an uninformed view, according to John Allan.

Recently the legislative Standing Committee on Finance travelled the province, and we heard from a whole host of presenters on many, many topics, a few of which were people who are very engaged in the lumber industry in our province.

When asked about the softwood lumber agreement, Rick Jeffrey, the president of the Coast Forest Products Association — someone who I would suggest to you is fairly well informed; I think a lot more informed than the members of the opposition — had this to say:

"By the way, softwood lumber does tie our hands a bit on the policy side, but the value of that agreement today is immeasurable" — perhaps that word should be repeated: "immeasurable" value. "Without it, I can tell you that the coastal forest industry would be completely shut down. So we have to live with some policy constraints that arise out of anticircumvention clauses on softwood."

Madam Speaker, that's Rick Jeffrey. He's only the president of the Coast Forest Products Association. He's only one of the experts in this province on what's going on in the forestry industry, and yet the members over there laugh about what he has to say. I think that's pretty shameful, particularly when it's so clear that they have no knowledge. They are led, if you could call it leadership, by someone who has absolutely no conception of what's going on in forestry, who has been out there stating a position that the industry itself is saying is utterly and completely ridiculous. In fact, as was said by John Allan, it's uninformed. Well, I think that's pretty generous.

Dave Lewis — he runs the truck loggers; he's the head of the Truck Loggers Association. He's hardly someone that you would say is uninformed or without knowledge about what's going on in forestry. What did Dave Lewis say when asked about abrogating the softwood lumber agreement or what is the value of it?

Well, I think he reflected the view that there is good and bad, which is what any deal is. His words:

"To try and say, 'Well, we're going rip that up now….' I think when things turn around within a year, we're going to face a whole new series of challenges and go through all the same acrimony. It'll be more punitive. I think that's one of those things where you pinch your nose and swallow. It's not a great deal, but it's better than what we had. It's a short-term necessity. I'd like to see things change."

He goes on to talk about how the softwood lumber agreement in today's market does punish some parts of the industry, such as remanning, but as he says: "Those are the people that are being penalized that have also said 'We'll live with it.' For heaven's sake, if the people who are living with it are the ones who are paying the cost we should really be careful about to whom we are saying we will or we won't deal with this."

In other words, what he is saying is that the people who are actually affected directly by the softwood lumber agreement are saying: "Leave it alone. For heaven's sake, don't rip it up; don't try to renegotiate it." But that Leader of the Opposition, that leader, if you call this leadership, wants that agreement torn up, gone, completely against the advice of the industry — the people who actually make an investment.

You know, I look across the benches at the opposition side and I wonder who over there, other than one member who has a great deal of experience in horse-logging, has any experience in the forestry industry. It's very thin. The critic has forestry experience, but I think he was a personnel manager within a forestry industry.

[1030]

I won't sit here and say that I have experience in forestry. What I will say, though, is that like my colleagues, any of us who have no experience go to the people who do have experience and we listen to them.

You know, there's an old adage. There's an old adage that, you know, a wise man seeks wise counsel. I think that, unfortunately, the NDP have no ability to seek out wise counsel. They invent this policy, particularly because, I think, their friends in the Steelworkers union give them some direct orders. And Jim Sinclair delivers some orders. And Jack Layton delivers some orders. And of course, they all salute the flag. I guess, from their perspective, if this is your outlook, that's some kind of leadership.

Dave Lewis — Truck Loggers. That's the softwood lumber agreement. I think it's a necessary evil right now. We want to keep it in place. I don't know how we can argue with that. There are bigger issues that we can tackle.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: Well, that's the fact. There are bigger issues that we can tackle. Let's talk about some of them, too, but within the context of the softwood lumber agreement and how it affects forestry and what's happening on the ground in forestry with workers that want to just simply go to work and earn a paycheque and feed their families.

The Leader of the Opposition and many members on the other side have said repeatedly, for example: "Log exports must stop. We must have a complete ban on log exports." I wonder about the member for North Coast. I wonder if they've talked to him about what will happen in his riding if they ban log exports. I wonder what's going to happen in Skeena. I wonder what's going to happen in the rest of his riding. I think I do know, and he does too, and that's: there will be a complete shutdown
[ Page 13163 ]
— total shutdown — of the forestry industry and thousands of people put out of work.

Today in British Columbia there isn't a market for cut lumber. It's pretty evident. I mean, read the newspapers. The housing starts are way down, there's no market in the United States, and yet the Steelworkers union is out there yelling: "Stop the log exports. You're sending our jobs out of the country."

Well, I sit and I wonder: which jobs are they? Which mill is out there desperately trying to buy all of the logs that we can cut and bring them into their mills and cut lumber and pile it up to the sky, hoping, praying day by day that somebody is going to come by and make a purchase of this lumber? But it's not happening.

And then I've heard the steelworkers say: "Gee, what we should do is…. We stop log exports to China, for example, and then they'll have no wood, so they'll have to buy our cut lumber." Well, you know, there was a glimmer of hope when Russia said they were going to impose a very large tax on logs. But the world economic situation has changed dramatically, and I notice that Mr. Putin in Russia has said: "Well, we'll postpone that tax." And the log exports to China from Russia would continue.

I can tell you that China is not out there saying: "Let's buy all our cut lumber from Canada, and let's stop cutting our own." That's not happening. We are out there internationally, trying to find new markets. We're desperately trying to find new markets, and I know that the minister has made great inroads in China and in Korea and in Japan. But that's not happening today. That's the future.

The future in forestry is very, very bright, but today there are people who are worrying about whether or not they're going to be able to go into the bush tomorrow and cut some trees, because that's how they make their living. If they can't sell the logs to the mills here, they've got to sell them somewhere. And that would mean log exports. That's what the Truck Loggers Association, that's what pretty much every part of the industry is saying has to happen.

We have log exports in this country through a surplus test so that our local mills are all able to buy wood, but if they don't want it, it goes on a surplus list, and it can be exported. And yet that Leader of the Opposition would stop that. If you stop log exports, you put 10,000 people in British Columbia out of work, but do they care? Well, the Steelworkers union has delivered some orders, so: "Let's just follow blindly what those folks over in our true leadership place had to say. Let's phone Jim Sinclair and ask him."

[1035]

Well, of course Jim Sinclair is saying: "Stop all log exports, and rip up the softwood lumber agreement." I wonder how much money Jim Sinclair has invested in the forestry industry. Let's count it up. Why, it's none. I wonder how many mills he's operated. Why, it's none.

So where would you look, then, if you really want advice on what to do in forestry? Would you look within the NDP caucus? Going back here to what was said, their position is uninformed. Well, we wouldn't look there. Would you look to Jim Sinclair, or would you look to the Steelworkers union? I don't think so. You would look to the people who actually have money invested, who operate mills, who pay the paycheques, who write paycheques….

M. Sather: Didn't the workers contribute anything?

R. Hawes: The workers are all important. My friend from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows keeps trying to interject. I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to speak if he wishes to. I hope he'll get up and actually defend the workers by saying that we want those workers out in the bush working, and that means that because we can't sell wood into the sawmills, we need to export some logs to at least keep the logging side working.

Oh, and by the way, as Dave Lewis of the Truck Loggers points out, there are two jobs in the bush today for every one job in manufacturing. Oh, well. Let's shut down log exports and shut down logging totally. That seems to be the position — the position that's bereft of any understanding — that is taken by the New Democratic Party.

I've looked very carefully at what the industry is saying about softwood. The softwood agreement is not a perfect agreement. It's an international agreement that was not negotiated by British Columbia. British Columbia had a part in it along with other provinces, but it was an international agreement negotiated through the offices of the Prime Minister and the federal government.

British Columbia saying, "We're going to reopen softwood," on this international treaty? I don't think so. Perhaps someone needs a reality check here, and that someone must be the Leader of the Opposition. That Leader of the Opposition who came out with a financial plan, incidentally….

This all sort of ties together, because with the change in the world's economy, we know that our economy is going to be under some pressure. That's why we're here today. We're looking at some legislation that will provide some relief and stimulus in our economy as we weather the tough storms that are out there today.

So we look at what the Leader of the Opposition has promised in these stormy times. "Well, we'll axe the tax," she says. The carbon tax that was introduced to try and mitigate and take some leadership in the mitigation on greenhouse gases in this world, a tax that's introduced that actually reduces taxes in other areas, shifts taxes from income to consumption, which is actually not a bad thing, and experts in this around the world have said that and have lauded this tax. Of course, why consult with them? We did. We consult with experts, but why would they?
[ Page 13164 ]
 

The tax will get axed, but there'll be no change in the income tax cuts that we got. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of deficit created in a financial plan that was put out, if you call it a plan, by the Leader of the Opposition a few days after the measures that the current government announced…. That plan alone creates well over a billion dollars in a deficit hole that our kids would have to assume.

But we have balanced budget legislation in British Columbia where you can't run deficits, something I must say has been supported over and over and over by the opposition. They have agreed over and over that we should not be running operating deficits in this province.

Yet a financial plan is put forward by the New Democratic Party that would create billions of dollars in debt. And then when you look at the other promises around health care, education, child care, it actually adds up to many billions of dollars in deficit that would be created. So something's got to give.

[1040]

I guess what it is, as I said earlier, is that when you're in opposition, you don't have to deliver anything. You can promise anything, and who really cares? That seems to be the position that's taken by the New Democratic Party, who actually would be out there in the public saying: "We think we should form government."

Should they be trusted to run our economy when even in the forestry industry there's been such a lack of consultation, so little knowledge…? Going back to…. I guess the words were "uninformed decision-making" in terms of the softwood agreement.

The softwood agreement isn't perfect, but it's here. We have it. We need to live with it. The industry is telling us that. So this motion, which says that we recognize the importance of the softwood agreement, might as well have signatures under it from pretty much every facet of the forestry industry. The ones who seem to be opposing it are the uninformed, and that would include, then, the members opposite.

With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I certainly would be supporting this motion. I would urge the members on the opposite side to perhaps over the lunch hour, if the debate adjourns, go and have a little read of what the industry is saying about this. Don't worry about what Jim Sinclair is saying. Don't worry about what your leadership in the Steelworkers union are saying about this, and certainly try not to worry too much about what your real leader, Jack Layton, is saying about this.

You should perhaps just listen to what the people who have knowledge and investment are saying, and that's: "Leave it alone."

With that, I thank you for the time, and I look forward to hearing more on this debate.

D. Routley: I am so pleased to stand up and continue debate on this motion here in October. Oh sorry, it's November, isn't it? I'm sorry. We were expected to come back and debate business of the province in October, weren't we? Well, yes we were, but here we are in November, and why? Because we have an arrogant….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

Member, please take your seat for a minute.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I cannot hear the speaker.

Thank you, Member.

D. Routley: Because we have an arrogant and out-of-touch government who ignored the crisis in the forestry industry, who ignored the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in this province, who ignored the closure of dozens of mills and told this province that it had no reason to call back this Legislature on schedule in October when this motion should have been debated.

But here we are. Here we are in November, facing an uncaring government that sat on its hands, stood on the sidelines and had nothing to say about the loss of those dozens of mills, those tens of thousands of jobs.

Where were you? Where were those ministers? Where was this government? On holiday? What were they doing? Well, they weren't in my community where we lost logging contractor after logging contractor — hundreds and hundreds of jobs — where we lost mills, where we lost the coaching…. Because you know what? Those workers had to leave. So we lost coaches. We lost volunteers. We lost people who serve our community, because of that government and their arrogance and their unwillingness to face the facts.

We went through the longest and most prolonged housing boom in the United States, our main customer, and during that time this government and its policies caused the closure of dozens and dozens of mills — the loss of 13,000 jobs since just a year and a half ago. Unbelievable.

Interjections.

D. Routley: It is rather unbelievable — isn't it? — that this minister could sit there and allow that to happen without calling back this Legislature on schedule.

So it's not October, is it? It's November, rather late in the game — isn't it? — to have any reaction, rather late in the game for a government who admitted…. In fact, some of those who admitted in word are sitting right there right now. They said: "There's no role for us.
[ Page 13165 ]
We're merely spectators in this crisis." They sat on their hands. They sat on their hands while job after job was lost, while mill after mill closed. That's what is insufficient here.

[1045]

Yes, we say this agreement is insufficient. The debate isn't whether an agreement is a good thing. It's whether this agreement is a good thing, and this agreement needs help, just like this province needs help. But this is a government that isn't paying attention; it's asleep at the wheel.

In fact, the person who's most asleep at the wheel, I would say, is the Forests Minister himself and, in particular, the former Forests Minister, who was asleep at the wheel when he claimed that B.C. was driving the bus, that he was driving the bus in this agreement.

We were promised by the Premier of this province and by Prime Minister Harper that under this agreement we would be paying an average of 5 percent export taxes on our lumber at the border. But just like we were promised to be here in October, we weren't, were we? Well, we're not paying 5 percent either, are we? No, we're paying 15 percent, so that's why this agreement is failing us.

But in the end, it's not about the agreement. It's about the failure of this government to defend British Columbia. It's about the failure of this government to use the tools that were in the tool box to help the communities that have been struggling, that have been dying on the vine under the lack of leadership from this government, its ministers and its Premier.

Our number one industry has been allowed to rot on the vine during the best housing boom, the biggest housing boom, in the history of the United States. This government allowed that to happen. They sat back while their policies were pointed to by two independent coroners' inquests as contributing reasons to the deaths of workers.

They were warned. They can't hide behind the excuse of unintended consequence from their policies, because they were warned, because they were told that this would happen. They were told that workers would die if they did what they did in terms of deregulating and pulling apart the structure of the industry, and what happened? Record numbers of deaths.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member opposite asks how I can say that. I can say that because a coroner said it. Did you not listen? Were you not listening to the coroner either?

They weren't listening to the people of B.C. They weren't listening to the industry. They weren't listening to the market. They weren't listening to the coroner. They were listening to no one because they were on an ideological rampage, just pulling apart our industry and abandoning our communities. That's what we've seen, and it is a shame.

During good times they failed to protect the industry. They failed to build on a foundation that was provided by previous generations, and now during bad times the industry is on its back and unable to respond. It doesn't have the flexibility it needs to respond because of the damage that this government did in terms of fibre supply, in terms of worker protections, in terms of protecting community interest.

That could no better be exemplified than by the failure to protect the public interest in the removal of private lands from the TFLs. That was pointed to by the Auditor General as a failure by this government to protect the public interest — one more in a long string of those failures. But this one costs us the future of forestry on Vancouver Island.

That government, the former minister, allowed that removal for their own interest, just like for their own interest they failed to call us back in October, when we were supposed to be debating this motion, just like their own interest calls them back now because they know their political skins are on the line.

But that's not good enough for the people of B.C. They expect more from the leadership of this province, and they're not getting it from the B.C. Liberals, that Premier, that former Forests Minister or the current Forests Minister.

In fact, the current Forests Minister is so out of touch that recently he said he sees signs of recovery. Signs of recovery? Look around the world. Listen to what's happening in Congress today, with the automakers pleading for bailout. Does he see a recovery? Did he see all those deaths in the forest industry coming? Did he see the effects of this agreement? Did he see what sitting on his hands and doing nothing would do to our communities? He saw none of it. In his own words, he saw none of it.

He told us there will be no more mill downtime or closures. Well, you can say it. When are you made accountable for it? Is the minister accountable for his words? Is the minister in any way accountable for what he says to this province?

[1050]

Can the province expect any accountability from these members across the way who have ignored our communities, who have ignored this crisis, who have been arrogant, who have been out of touch, who have failed this province?

During a good time they allowed our industry to fall apart. They allowed the debt of this province to be increased manyfold. They don't even know how much we owe. I bet if I ask them how much the net debt of this province is, including all their public-private partnerships, they won't be able to answer — just like those CEOs of the banks couldn't answer Congress when they were
[ Page 13166 ]
asked: "How much do you actually owe?" "Well, we don't really know."

They don't really know. They don't really know what's happening in the forest industry, but I can show them.

The previous speaker talked about how many of us have experience in the forest industry. Our critic has a better grasp on the forest industry than their entire government caucus put together. Many of us have worked in the forest industry. Many of us know the end of the greenchain. Many of us have supported families through that industry. Many of us have friends who can't do that anymore, and so many of us come from communities who can't expect that anymore because of the policies of this uncaring and arrogant government.

They have failed the province of British Columbia. They inherited an industry that is the most renewable of any. They inherited a land base for that industry, which represents the lungs of the planet, and they let it die.

They let pulpwood stay on the forest floor — doubled the waste because of their policies. That has closed pulp mills. That has cost forest health. That has contributed to global warming. That proves the hypocrisy of their positions on environment, on forestry, on economy.

They built debt in good times. They let our industry fail in good times. It's very sad. It's sad, even, to see contractors fail now in our communities who've stood and cheer-led this agenda. "Yay," they were saying, "keep it up. Don't worry about the cuts to education and health care. Don't worry about that. You're going the right way."

Look where it took us. Those contractors now are floating belly up because of the policies of that government. This industry has faced tough times before. This industry has faced really tough times — early '90s, in the savings and loan crisis, which caused a huge depression in the number of housing starts in the United States.

But did we lose our industry? No. Did we lose the community connection to its resources and the benefit of those resources? No. When did that happen? Oh, when this government came to power and ripped apart the structures in an ideological rampage, driving a bulldozer through them and offering up single sheets of paper that said: "Don't worry. The market will take care of it."

Well, Madam Speaker, I think the people — who expect us to be stewards of their welfare, to marshal the regulations that would protect their communities and their industry and their safety on the job — expect a heck of a lot more than that. Don't you? Is there anybody here who would think that people in forest-dependent communities didn't expect more and don't expect more today?

I wonder what they think. They should come and visit my community and speak to the workers. Speak to the owners of those contracting companies that are belly-up now, and see what they think about the response or non-response of this government. But they're too arrogant. They're out of touch.

They won't come visit my community and talk to those workers. They won't offer them any help. They won't offer them any steps that could be taken. The tools will remain in the tool box, as they have for the last seven years, because this government sees no role for itself. And you know what? I agree with them. They have no role, and the people of B.C. are seeing that. They have no role, and they're being told that at the polls in the by-elections and elsewhere in this province.

[1055]

They don't have a role. People are rejecting this failed agenda. This agenda has resulted in the loss, just in the last year and a half, of 13,000 jobs — well before this financial crisis ever hit the marketplace. Well before the end of the housing boom in the United States, this government had already presided over the loss of dozens of our mills, the loss of community benefit throughout this province from its own resources.

What else are they expected to do but protect the public interest? And yet, they allow the removal of the private lands on Vancouver Island, and they're condemned by the Auditor General. How do they respond? They condemn the Auditor General.

It's just really quite a brilliant example of an absolute abject failure to protect our public interest — throughout the industry. Mackenzie alone lost four mills in the last seven months and close to a thousand jobs. You know, 40 mills have closed, Madam Speaker — 40 mills. The people who worked in those mills were the coaches of the soccer teams and hockey teams. They were the volunteers who drove seniors around town, and they can't do that any more, because they've had to leave.

What have they done during good times? Built up debt. What have they done during good times? Allowed mills to close. What have they done during good times? Let the industry dwindle. Let the protections for workers disappear. What has that done to our communities? Well, it's been devastating, Madam Speaker. It's been devastating.

I know some of them come from forest-dependent communities, and I know that the same workers come through their doors as come through the doors of my community office, with their children, in tears — plead for help, tell us that their losing their homes, tell us that they can't stay in community. But it doesn't matter to this government. It doesn't matter.

The previous speaker mentioned the Truck Loggers Association. Well, they're desperate. They know that they're losing their skill base. They know that a lack of training and a lack of investment in the industry is resulting in the loss of the base of skilled workers that will cripple their ability to respond and recover.

There are more bankruptcies on the upsurge of an economy just past the down spot — just past the bottom — because people struggle to hold on. Just like in the communities, they struggle to hold on. But they can't respond when things pick up.
[ Page 13167 ]
 

So that's what these businesses will be facing. They will be facing — at a time when there is a recovery — a total inability to respond because, again, of B.C. Liberal government policies. The policies that that Premier, the policies that that Forests Minister and that former Forests Minister endorsed and imposed. We'll pay the price for that; not them. We will pay the price for that. The people of B.C. will pay the price for that.

You know, the Auditor General asked if…. The main question in his report on the removal of the lands was: "Was the decision adequately informed?" The simple answer was no. That answer — and that question — could be applied to the entire framework of B.C. Liberal forest policies. Was it adequately informed? No. Are they adequately informed now? No. Because they're not listening. Because they don't care. Because they have other interests.

The Premier's pet projects have kept him rather busy in front of the cameras, but he hasn't been in our communities. He hasn't been there leading a recovery. He hasn't been there showing people how they can deal with this crisis, because he doesn't care. This B.C. Liberal government doesn't care.

We saw unusual stock trading in front of the decision to remove the lands from the TFL oversight. We saw certain people benefit. We saw the picking of winners and the picking of losers, and unfortunately, our local forest-dependent communities were the big losers.

[1100]

Did the ministry effectively monitor the land removal decision? The Auditor General said no. Was there an effective consultation or communication with stakeholders? The Auditor General said no. Did they consult with first nations? No. Did they consult with workers? No. Did they consult with local government? No. Did they consult with local small business? No.

No, no, no — because they had other interests, because other people were whispering in their ears, because big donors were whispering in their ears, because they had this plan long before it was implemented, because they thought they could get away with it, because they're arrogant, because they don't care.

Arrogance is the most toxic ingredient in politics and the most difficult to shed. In fact, this faltering and failing government has refused to even meet with our communities. They put together their round table and moved it throughout the province, without adequate consultation again. Every tool that could have protected our communities was left in the tool box. Every possible step that could have been taken to protect our industry failed.

This government didn't care. They weren't listening. You can hear it in the way the last speaker spoke of the stakeholders in the industry other than those who support his government — with absolute disdain for the people who were elected by the workers to represent them.

This government sees those people as their enemies — because they're arrogant, because they're out of touch. They don't see that what we need is a real partnership between workers and industry, between communities, the kind of partnership that existed before they tore the page up, before they ripped things up in an ideological pursuit of an agenda that has failed our communities.

What more evidence do we need to present to this House of a failed agenda? We had the highest and most powerful housing boom in United States history, and that government failed to advantage us. They let our industry fall apart at that time, and now they try to hide behind the current crisis as the reason that things have gone wrong.

Well, that's pathetic, because we and the communities we represent have sent us here in this House. We pleaded with the government to just even notice that tens of thousands of people were losing their jobs and dozens of mills were closing then, but they took no notice. In fact, one of the former ministers sitting across from me right now told this province that her government was simply a spectator — that they'd have to sit on the sidelines. "Sorry, we're sitting this one out."

What more evidence would you need of a government that has been poisoned by arrogance than that — that it could ignore the people who elected it, that it could ignore the communities it's supposed to represent? I know of no other evidence that could be more condemning than what I've offered and what we have offered for the last seven years in this House, as they have been told and warned that their policies would end up harming the people that they were meant to represent. But they didn't care.

The softwood lumber agreement. Yeah, we need an agreement, but this government had better agreements recommended to it by leaders of industry, by communities, by this party, and they ignored that. The man who was driving the bus — the former Forests Minister, who claims to have been driving the bus — drove it right into the damn ditch, and we end up in the place we are now, with our communities dying in forest-dependent regions of this province.

They ignored every voice other than those who had a donation prepared for them. They ignored every voice that didn't matter to them, which meant every worker, which meant every community that didn't elect one of their members, that didn't support them.

[1105]

The agreement is imbalanced. The agreement left the resources of this province on the table unnecessarily. The agreement sacrificed the sovereignty of this province unnecessarily. This government failed this province unnecessarily.

They had all the warnings. They had all the advice they needed to avoid these problems. They had the kind of advice that could have rebuilt the connection of resource to community, and that could have rebuilt the training
[ Page 13168 ]
systems of this province. Instead, they were listening to other voices. They were listening to voices that were at the ends of pens that were signing big cheques that were donations to the B.C. Liberal Party, rather than the people that they represent. We are now witnessing and suffering the result of that in failure — failure of mills, in loss of jobs, in loss of community health.

It's very sad that this government could allow this to happen, even though they were warned. Unintended consequences are not an adequate excuse when you've been warned. Any responsible person who has been warned that the possible outcomes of their actions might be negative cannot hide behind unintended consequence, like this government does.

Many people warned of the housing bubble, how it might burst and what effect that might have on our markets, but that didn't deter them. No, they didn't see it. In fact, even after that bubble burst, we heard the current minister say that he saw signs of recovery — wishful thinking or a dodge from a microphone but obviously a blindness that has cost our province and has cost our communities their future.

He said there would be no more mill downtime or closures. What planet does he live on? Wasn't he looking around? Wasn't he paying attention to what was happening in the financial markets? Was he ignoring every voice in a desperate attempt to defend policies that have been proven to have been failures, just like his government? Thousands of workers have lost their jobs because of these decisions.

The former minister said:

"We did take the lead role on this negotiation. We were the ones driving the bus in this negotiation, and we were the ones working with industry across the country…. What's more, I know who drove this deal. I know that B.C. was at the table. I know that B.C. was the leader in the softwood negotiations with the ambassador and federal government in this country. I do know this — that it was the best deal available for British Columbia…."

Well, what a deal it was. Other industry leaders, two years before, had spoken to Congress members, had spoken to representatives of then President Bush and had de facto agreement on measures that would have been far less damaging than what this government agreed to. They agreed to a deal that is now costing us 15 percent taxes on our lumber and nothing on our raw logs. Brilliant. Give it away.

On sovereignty, the former minister said: "The reality is, when market-based timber pricing is done, that's the end of our changes. I don't think it's as big an issue as some people will try to make it to be, but at the same time, I will watch the language as it comes through."

Well, we've lost the ability to set policy without intervention from our southern neighbours. How was that protecting public interest? Again, this government fails to protect public interest. We had already won the legal battle. We were on the verge of proving our case, yet they signed on to this inadequate deal.

[1110] 

This deal needs restructuring. This deal is not serving us, but in the end, no deal could that was marshalled and monitored and implemented by this government — because they didn't care; because they refused, and refuse, to use the tools they already had, which they still have, to help our communities.

They've admitted it. They've admitted that they're just spectators. They've admitted that they have no role, so let's relegate them to the stands and let people who really do care about their communities and who really do listen to the broad range of stakeholders take over the fight.

That would be this side of the House, because we believe in a balanced approach to this issue that will protect our communities, that will protect our province's interest and its resources, not auction them off to the highest bidder, the highest donor. That's the B.C. Liberal way — a way born out of arrogance, a way that proves how out of touch that government is, and its ministers.

They can blare all they like, but it will do no good, because in the end the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is that we have lost 13,000 jobs in the last year and a half; we've lost 40 mills in the last year and a half.

This is a devastating outcome, and it is an outcome that has been directed by the failure of that government, its policies, and its failure to live up to its main purpose: to protect the public interest. The Auditor General said it, forest-dependent communities say it, and we're saying it. They're not hearing it. They're too arrogant. They'll never listen.

I challenge the next speaker to take responsibility for the outcomes, take responsibility for what they've done over the last seven years, and promise to listen to our communities and be responsive instead of being arrogant and out of touch.

R. Thorpe: It's always nice to listen to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith to hear the nonsense that he talks about, to hear the non-factual statements he makes and how he can be so far away from telling British Columbians the truth. It's actually remarkable.

You know, I remember….

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I'll get to you in a minute.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

R. Thorpe: Just a second here, Madam Speaker.

The previous speaker talks about their balanced approach. Well, we remember the fudge-it budget. We actually remember that. We were here. We heard it
[ Page 13169 ]
delivered. British Columbians remember it. We also remember the jobs and timber accord — going to create 21,000 new jobs. How many thousands and thousands and thousands did they lose? And the member talks about the great times in the '90s. Let me see. British Columbia, when they came in, was at the top of the pile, with the strongest economy in North America's history.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. Let the member have his spot.

R. Thorpe: The NDP took us from No. 1 to 10. What an accomplishment that member's party was responsible for.

If the member could only get away from his talking notes and get on to the facts, the member would recognize that in British Columbia in the last seven years youth unemployment's gone from 17½ percent to just under 8 percent — an amazing achievement. The member would know that unemployment has reached its lowest levels, during those seven years, in the history of the province of British Columbia — 350,000 new jobs created in British Columbia.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: I know the members don't want to hear the facts, but they are the facts. Also, we've had balanced budgets.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the speaker. Order, please.

R. Thorpe: I'm trying my best, Madam Speaker, so you can hear me. I don't usually like to talk this loud, but I'm just trying to get over the nattering that's taking place over there.

We know that the NDP have voted every time against 103 tax reductions, but now we hear from their leader that, well, they may be for it, so we must be getting close to an election. They're going to change another position, and we know what would happen. They would flip and flop again. The masters of say one thing; do another thing.

[1115]

The fact is that in the last seven and a half years British Columbians making $111,000 are paying the lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in Canada — putting money in families' pockets, creating jobs and creating strong communities.

We know that they talk about wanting to help small business, and then they go around and beat them up every day. They voted against reducing taxes for small business from 4½ percent to 3½….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Members, I remind everyone that I know it's the beginning of the session, but the Speaker needs to hear the person that's speaking. Thank you.

Member, take your space again.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

They voted against reduction of small business tax. It was 4½, we took it to 3½, and now it's 2½. It's going to be…. And they voted against that. They voted against that, and yet they talk about how they care. They don't care. They never have.

But they also will not admit that a strong economy has resulted in the largest investments in the history of British Columbia in health care, the largest investments in education, the largest investments in advanced education, the largest investments in those who truly need our help throughout British Columbia.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, take your seat again. Thank you.

We won't have members speaking until there's order in the House. Thank you.

Member, continue.

R. Thorpe: Under the careful watch of our team and our leader, while doing all of those things that we talk about, British Columbia has been able to restore its triple-A credit rating, which those folks over there destroyed — our credit rating across Canada.

I want to talk....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, please come to order. Sorry, I've got Columbia River–Revelstoke. Please come to order, and you too.

R. Thorpe: I just want to talk to this motion and talk about my support for the softwood lumber agreement. I'm looking very, very much to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke standing and talking in support of this too, because apparently, he said on August 30 in his community….

Just let me quote here: "This deal works for the Downie Street mill. Downie mill is a critically important part of Revelstoke's economy, and the deal protects the mill's employees." He went on to say: "It is my obligation to speak for mills in my area, and flawed or not, this deal
[ Page 13170 ]
is a good resolution for them." That's what that member over there said.

So here we have it. When he's in Revelstoke, he's going to tell the voters of Revelstoke how much he cares and supports them for their investment, for their job creation. When he comes here, he takes orders from Jack Layton and the leader of the NDP. That's who he's walking and talking to.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Member, please take your seat.

Members, everybody will get a chance to have their say, and I ask again, Members. Please respect the speaker that is speaking so the Speaker can hear that speaker as well. We won't start until there's order.

Member, please continue.

R. Thorpe: I think it's important for the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to speak the same language when he's in two different places. He can't tell the people in Revelstoke he cares about their mill and that this is a good deal and that it's good for their community and then come here and spew NDP rhetoric. It's not acceptable. You've got to talk straight to those who elected you, and it's about time you started doing it.

Point of Order

N. Macdonald: I think there's a line, and to accuse a member of spewing…. You can go back in the record and find any sort of thing that's been said in here that's been inconsistent with what I've said anywhere else. It's a ridiculous thing to say, from a member who surely knows better, and an apology is in order. I give the former minister an opportunity to say that and to keep his rhetoric somewhere within the realms of reality.

I think that that should be a part of what we do here. I invite the member to correct himself.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that's a point of order.

I would remind all members to use temperance in their speech. Thank you.

Member, continue.

[1120]

Debate Continued

R. Thorpe: Let me say in a quiet tone to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that I look forward to him standing in this House and telling all British Columbians, especially those constituents that he represents, what he said to the Revelstoke Times Review, August 30, 2006 — to stand in this House and say exactly the same thing and not to buy into the party line talking notes.

Let me say this. Before the softwood lumber agreement British Columbia's forest industry was forced to pay export duties ranging between 20 percent and 27 percent, regardless of the price of lumber. Under this agreement, Canadian exporters received refunds for anti-dumping and countervailing duties paid to the United States. The duties amounted to over $5 billion, with over $2.4 billion of that coming back to British Columbia.

I've got another little note here from the member for Cariboo North. It's interesting what he said at the time, when that money came back to British Columbia. I quote the member for Cariboo North on May 1, 2006: "I know that one of the drivers for the minister in getting the softwood settlement was getting the 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 what the member said in this House — that he supported the softwood lumber deal. Now, apparently, he doesn't. I don't know.

This agreement has ended up in costly litigation — millions and millions of dollars, some have estimated in excess of over $100 million. A softwood lumber agreement creates certainty and market certainty for the industry.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, could you take your seat again.

Members, I understand that there are members that want to speak in this debate. You will all get your chance, so please respect the speaker that's speaking. The Speaker needs to hear the debate.

Member, please continue.

R. Thorpe: The agreement was designed to create that stability and that certainty. The one thing I will agree on with the member from Cowichan Valley is that these times, as the member had indicated himself…. The economic times and crisis that are taking place in the United States are unbelievable.

An Hon. Member: Irrelevant.

R. Thorpe: The member who just said it's irrelevant should turn to the member behind…. Why it would be relevant in his speech and not mine, I don't know, but she could talk to the member over there.

Housing starts in the United States in October of this year are the lowest since 1959. Certainly, no one can expect that mills are going to produce product and store it. That makes no sense.

Interjections.
[ Page 13171 ]
 

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Thank you. Continue.

R. Thorpe: B.C.'s forest industry now pays no export tax when prices are high, as opposed to 20 percent to 27 percent prior to this agreement being signed. Any export tax that is going to be collected now stays in Canada, whereas in the past it used to flow to the United States. That didn't make any sense. So that money is being put back into the communities of British Columbia.

I know that the members over there don't want to talk about that, but it's important that the members on that side of the House stand up and say to Jack Layton and her leader: "It's time to support the forest industry." The auto sector and the aerospace are looking for bailouts, and Jack Layton and the NDP…. We know the NDP in British Columbia…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

R. Thorpe: …and the NDP in Canada. It's the same party. We know that. But are the members of the NDP in British Columbia going to break rank with Jack Layton and their leader and say: "No, we want to support the forest companies. We don't want to bail out the auto sector and the aerospace. We want to support British Columbians"? That's the question that has to be asked.

[1125]

The member for Cariboo North talked about how important the money was for his community. I would have thought that if he had so much knowledge of the forest sector, he would listen to some of the leaders. These aren't all of the leaders. We know that there is a vast leadership arrangement throughout all parts of the province of British Columbia.

I'm pleased to have the Gorman family in my own riding. Only a couple of weeks ago I was speaking with Mr. Gorman. We were talking about the economic challenges of today. I asked him specifically about the softwood lumber deal, and he said: "It's tough times now, but that's the right thing to do." That is the right thing to do.

Here's a quote from the September 25 Vancouver Sun. It talks about Mr. Layton's position on the softwood lumber agreement. "Bluntly put, that" — Layton's plan to scrap the softwood lumber agreement — "has to be one of the more uninformed views that I've heard for some time around softwood lumber." Then leaders go on to say that the softwood agreement has provided our industry with certainty: "We require it to plan and carry out businesses."

It also went on to say:

"Jack Layton ignores the fact that arbitrarily cancelling an international trade agreement with our single biggest customer in hope of negotiating something better puts it all at risk. It would also result in a hostile environment for any future discussions or negotiations. It would also result in tens of millions of dollars being spent on litigation when we'd rather spend that money on maintaining our facilities and retaining our employees."

That's what it's about. It is about making sure that when the economies come back in the United States, we have those very valued workers in the mills throughout British Columbia — that they're there to start up and take advantage of it.

Unlike the previous government, our government has been trying to expand the forest sector products around the world. Recently in China the minister, who was travelling with over a dozen industry representatives…. On this trade mission they secured orders for 83,000 board feet of new orders for B.C. lumber from all areas of the province.

I'm sure the member from Cowichan Valley would appreciate this. Western Forest Products will be shipping about 7.6 million board feet this month and another 24.4 million board feet in the first quarter of 2009 to China. This lumber will be produced primarily at Western Forest Products in the Cowichan Bay sawmill from hemlock harvested on northern Vancouver Island.

This is good. This is good for the workers there. This is good for the employees. It's good for the communities.

Up in Nanaimo Harmac is now running today because of the work of our MLA for Nanaimo-Parksville and our government working with the union and management. Things are happening in these very, very difficult times.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I think I just heard a noise from the other side of the House. I wonder when the member for Yale-Lillooet is going to have the courage…. In the past he has had the courage to stand up to his leader and some people in his caucus. In the past he has, but I wonder today if he has the courage to stand up on behalf of his constituents to say that the jobs and the softwood lumber agreement are the right things to do long term.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. Thank you.

R. Thorpe: I doubt that he will have that courage today, because in the past he's suffered penalties for speaking what's on his mind. But perhaps he will.

I know that the NDP listen and take their orders from Jack Layton, and I know that they listen to Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair told them that the Federation of Labour will condemn the softwood trade agreement as a sellout of national interest and betrayal of Canadian sovereignty and a direct economic threat to the life of the wood industry–based communities in British Columbia and across Canada.

[1130] 
[ Page 13172 ]
 

Well, isn't it amazing that he would take that rather irresponsible position of getting an agreement in place that in strong economic times assures Canada — and in particular British Columbia, as one of the largest producers and exporters in Canada — the opportunity to have a viable business and marketplace? So, Mr. Sinclair…. You would almost think he wants to put walls up around British Columbia. They probably want to go back now and get rid of NAFTA. You know, that is the thinking of the past.

When are the NDP going to get into the future and understand this is about building jobs, building a future? It's about jobs, and yes, there are some speed bumps on the road right now. But, you know, when we work together, when we work with unions, when we work with companies, when we work with communities, we can position ourselves to be better than we've ever been in the past to take advantage of when the markets come back.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

But some members on that side want to get tied up in the rhetoric of the past. I think we should be trying to move forward here. I want to challenge the members over on that side of the house to get out of this locked position they have of…. You can't always be against everything. You have to work in a positive way.

I know that it's easy to be negative. Well, I actually don't know that, because I'm a positive person. But just watching this crew over here for the last seven and a half years, you know, it must be very easy, because they're always so negative. They're always so pessimistic.

H. Lali: Three and a half years.

R. Thorpe: No, you were here before. You were here before.

H. Lali: You said seven and a half.

R. Thorpe: You're eight and a half.

Madam Chair, you know, they should listen. The member from Cowichan Valley talked about listening to the grass roots. Well, many locals of the United Steelworkers union have now withdrawn their calls to get rid of the softwood lumber agreement because they understand that it's a long-term opportunity.

Instead of this attack and negative and pessimistic approach, why don't you listen? Why don't you listen and get on board with building a strong economic base here in British Columbia so that we can be ready for the next great wave of economic prosperity in the United States, so that we can create jobs throughout all of our communities in British Columbia. That's what we should all be working together on.

The softwood lumber agreement also…. I'm sure the member from Nelson will be talking about this later — about how it has reduced the tax base for value-added. It's capped it at a lower rate. I'm sure that the member will be talking about how that has created opportunities for value-added companies in Creston, etc.

The NDP are against this. They say they're going to rip it up. I don't know where they want to ship our lumber. They haven't said that. They want to do everything they can to destroy, in the good economic times that will return again, the opportunity to have stability and certainty.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: They will return, and I'm very confident that the United States of America and its economy will come back.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Madam Speaker, I look forward to the member for Yale-Lillooet, if he's allowed to get up and speak. I just hope the members on that side, when the vote is called on this, that the member from Cowichan Valley, when he hears about the new shipments to China, the jobs that that's going to create, will stand up and support the stability in the forest industry, the new efforts of the government to move forward.

I hope the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — as he has said, he has spoken out against this government on this issue — will stand up and vote with the government on this motion. I hope that he is going to do that. I hope he's going to do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

R. Thorpe: You know, Madam Speaker, Members, some of them actually were ministers in a government of the 1990s that failed British Columbia and British Columbians miserably. The member for Yale-Lillooet, who I believed…. Well, he had a key position; therefore, I imagine he did play a key role. One of the greatest businesses that was developed under the NDP was the moving van business, but unfortunately they were just taking people out of British Columbia. They weren't bringing anybody into British Columbia.

The facts of the matter are, yes, with respect to the forest sector...

[1135] 
[ Page 13173 ]
 

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Thorpe: …and our biggest customer, the United States, there's absolutely no question that when you have your lowest housing starts — this last October — in 59 years, it actually is going to have an impact.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: And you know — Madam Speaker, I don't know if you can hear it, but down on the other side of the House I can hear this nattering that's going on that — that only someone with....

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Member, sit down for a minute.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thanks for at least momentarily reducing that natter from across the floor.

But you know, when people natter some of the things that that member was nattering, it just demonstrates their lack of understanding, their lack of knowledge. What I am hearing that member say is: "Let's make the owners and the people that invest to create jobs in our community run their mills regardless of if they have somewhere to send their products." Well, that is absolutely nonsense.

You know, these are challenging times in the United States. They do have a spillover effect to British Columbia. But you know, our government was able to work with the federal government to sign a softwood lumber agreement — which their leader, Jack Layton, and the member over here from Victoria will tear up and throw out. Then we'll have no access to the United States. Now that would be just a significant move, for the NDP to rip up agreements to the largest trading market in the world.

Now isn't that just a wonderful business insight to the future? That's what they'll do.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

R. Thorpe: Let me conclude here in a minute or two by saying that there are challenges today — there's no question about that — and there are workers and families and owners and suppliers that face challenges. But in this House we should be working together. We should be working together to show them all that we care.

That is what our government is doing. We are working with communities. We are working with employees. We are working with owners to understand the challenges that they have, to make every effort we can to expand markets such as China. But you know, these things don't happen overnight.

Right now, with respect to our forest sector, we've got to put in place the tools, the infrastructure, the mechanisms that are going to make sure that our sector can supply the world and can get back the United States market when it returns.

But what we also need is for the Leader of the Opposition to come clean with British Columbians, to tell British Columbians exactly what she would do. Because there is no way that you are going to create jobs, build communities, by ripping up an agreement. That is going to lose jobs, close down communities.

So please, let's get rid of that thought about ripping up an agreement with the largest trading partner we have in the world, with an industry that has been the backbone of British Columbia, which will once again return to be a very strong industry in British Columbia, creating thousands and thousands of jobs throughout communities in British Columbia.

Our government stands in support of the softwood lumber agreement. We stand against Jack Layton ripping it up. We stand against the leader of the B.C. NDP ripping it up.

C. Trevena: Before I start specifically on the motion — I'm very pleased that we are able to debate this motion; it is important to be able to talk about forestry; I represent a very dependent community, a community dependent on the forest industry — I would like to clarify a few of the misconceptions that the member for Okanagan-Westside has given to the House.

In his very full and emotional speech about…. Well, I would estimate the first ten minutes were about something that happened over ten years ago. He didn't actually mention the forest industry at all. Maybe that's because his government has actually killed what has been the backbone of B.C.'s economy for generations and what built B.C.

[1140]

I'd like to clarify some of the misconceptions. He keeps talking about ripping up the agreement and the deal's done, and so on. The Leader of the Opposition has said very clearly — and I think it is there on the record — that we would like to renegotiate the deal. We think that it's a bad deal. It is not good for the people of B.C.; it's not good for the industry of B.C. We would like to renegotiate it. There is a clause within the deal for renegotiation. We're not talking about getting rid of it completely. We are saying: "Let's talk about it. This isn't working for our communities."

I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition, who is not…. She said that we do need to look at renegotiating. We need to go back to the table. There is a
[ Page 13174 ]
clause where we can sit down with both parties and talk about this. This is what we are talking about.

I have got to say that it's very interesting — the member for Okanagan–Westside, in his pejorative terms, talking about the leader of the federal NDP and the terrible things that he's doing.

The member for Okanagan–Westside doesn't tell the House that his government did a deal with Stephen Harper to get the softwood lumber deal through. After having initially said that they weren't going to be signing on to it, they did some sort of deal with the Conservative government in Ottawa, gave a deal that has been bad for our province, bad for our communities, bad for families who live and work in B.C. and bad for families who live and work in the north Island.

I would also, before I start my remarks about the impact of this deal on my communities…. This deal has been painful for my communities, painful for the people of the north Island. We've seen people who are just simply not working, seen mills closed and seen, across the province, thousands of people — up to 13,000 people — out of work because of this government's inaction on the forest file.

The member for Okanagan–Westside has been talking a lot about the new Minister of Forest's trip to China and the trade deal that was going on and all this great work that's going to come of it. He cited a figure of…. There was going to be 24 million cubic feet of lumber that's going to be milled down in the Cowichan Valley. Well, as people in the forest industry…. I know the member for Okanagan–Westside doesn't actually represent a forest-dependent community. In most mills on the coast, a million board feet a day is quite a good production. At 24 million board feet, we're talking about 15 days of work. I don't believe that is a very significant amount.

R. Thorpe: Following the efforts of the member from Columbia River–Revelstoke, I'd just like to point out that the Gorman Bros. mill in my riding is a longstanding family business and has been a great employer and supplier of goodwill and financial aid to the community of Westside.

C. Trevena: I hope that the mill is still running, and I hope that the people in the mill can continue working, because I don't think the minister's government has really been representing people or working on behalf of the industry. He, then, obviously does know that mills, when they are running at capacity, can mill a lot of lumber and that the amounts that are being talked about that are going to be shipped to China are very insignificant in the greater picture. They may keep one or two mills going for a few weeks, but they are not going to mean a restructuring of the industry, and that's what we need.

The member has been talking about the needs, the job creation and all the good things that are coming. What we're looking at is a need to restructure the industry, and this is an opportunity that we should be grasping as an opportunity to restructure the industry.

We have a crisis in the forest industry. There is no question about it. We cannot simply blame the fall in the U.S. housing market, the end of the construction boom in the U.S., for the problems in the forest industry in B.C. We've been seeing it happening for a number of years. We've seen a government that has not been prepared to act on it, a government that sat on the sidelines.

The former Minister of Finance herself said that there was nothing we could do. We're just going to be spectators to the collapse of an industry, the collapse of an industry that has been the backbone, as I've said in the past, of this province.

[1145]

We're here to debate the softwood lumber deal. I would find it very hard for, actually, anyone…. I'm very surprised that the members opposite do keep defending this deal. I find it very hard that anybody can see that it is a good deal when it has undercut our sovereignty and has undercut our communities in B.C.

A very simple issue is the moneys that came back to the country and the province in revenues. Somehow the American government managed to hold on to a billion dollars that should have come back to us, to our communities. It could have been spent on ensuring that we could transition and that our economy, our forest companies and our manufacturing companies could actually be significant. They would use that money, and in our current economic crisis, which isn't just the forest crisis, this would really have helped.

We're talking about 13,000 or 14,000 jobs which have disappeared in this province in the forest industry since 2007. It's just an astounding number of people, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is just the start of what's going to be happening.

I started my remarks by saying that I represent a forest-dependent community, like many of my colleagues in the House. This has been what has created B.C.

Campbell River had two mills. It had the TimberWest sawmill at Elk Falls, and it still has a pulp mill. The sawmill closed down, despite TimberWest, one of the two main logging companies on the Island, having lands that it could log.

Now, TimberWest is very interesting. It's got a lot of private lands, and it still has public lands. Even though it's got public lands and tree farm licences, it hasn't been using those logs to keep its mill open. This is a viable sawmill. This is a viable mill with good jobs, well-paid jobs which kept families working. It kept people in the communities. It kept schools open. People enjoyed their work there. That mill has now closed. That mill is no longer in existence, despite the fact that TimberWest has public lands that could be feeding the mill.
[ Page 13175 ]
 

TimberWest and its private lands. These are private lands that they are now selling across the Island. I think that anybody who drives across the Island regularly sees that TimberWest lands are up for sale and that they are turning into real estate rather than a logging company.

We have what would be a viable mill — which would be creating jobs, which would have kept many families in the community — closed down because of an abject failure to commit to the forest industry in B.C. The logs that are still being logged are now going elsewhere.

The impact isn't just on the people who work at the mill. The impact is on the people who log. The impact is also on…. You start taking out some of the infrastructure, and it has a ripple effect. So we have a mill that's closed down, and we have a change in TimberWest by not keeping its mill open. The infrastructure starts going.

For instance, there are a number of woodlot operators in my community and a number of woodlot operators on Quadra Island who use the log sort and would be supplying the mill. Where are they supplying? They can't sell their logs either.

It's not just the one effect. It's not just the one mill closing. It has a huge, huge ripple effect.

That mill supplied the Catalyst pulp mill next door. With the TimberWest mill going, it's had an impact on Catalyst. So its kraft mill is closing, which means more jobs going from my community. While that pulp mill is…. There are still going to be some jobs there. It's going to be a much-diminished place.

Again, these are well-paying jobs which support families, which support communities and which are based on our forest industry, which this government has just walked away from. It said: "We cannot do anything. We are spectators."

[1150]

They know that there is fibre there. They know that there is the product there that could keep them going. The manager of the Catalyst mill said the other day…. He knows that there's the wood out in the bush, but the way that the game is structured at the moment is that nobody can get that wood in because it's not profitable to bring it in.

We've got to be looking at a complete restructuring of the industry. That's what we're advocating. We're not saying: "Blame it all on the States, and let's look at China, and let's make sure…. We'll just export to China rather than exporting to the States." We need to look at what is happening right across the board, and that's what we're advocating. We're advocating that, yes, we want to renegotiate the softwood deal, but we're also advocating that we need to look at what else is there.

We need to look at the tenure system, because as I say, we've got TimberWest that looks after the private lands. We've got Western Forest Products on the Island, which has control over a huge swath of Crown land. One company — with our public Crown lands, our public forests. Our forests, our trees — one company has control, and this company is a Toronto-based company. It's not rooted in logging, and while it employs many people in our communities and contracts in our communities, it has lost the links to our communities.

It's lost the links. There isn't a Western mill in my community anymore, despite Western having the preponderance of the TFLs in the public lands. There is a pulp mill in Port Alice that was Doman and is now an independent pulp mill, but there isn't Western.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So this is why, with one company that has specific rules and specific regulations about how it is working — regulations that we think do need to be changed — we're not going to get any answers. We're not going to get people back to work. We've got communities collapsing and a government that sits back and blames it elsewhere.

We have ideas of how we can change it. If this government…. I mean, the member for Okanagan-Westside said he wanted to work collaboratively. Let's work collaboratively. Let's look at how we can restructure our forest industry to get people back to work. Let's look at working at how we can make sure that people can stay in their communities.

Again, the member for Okanagan-Westside talked about how he has recollections that, oh, sometime in the last century, people were leaving the communities. We'll I've got to say: job fairs are happening in my community. You see job fairs from companies in Alberta coming to Campbell River. We see the advertisements in the paper. The paper is full of job ads. Many of them are not for places in Campbell River. We see people moving out of the Island because there aren't the jobs, because this government has no commitment to looking at what needs to be done in the forest industry and really dealing with it.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just…. It's the individuals. We have to remember that we're talking about not just the big companies, not just what we're going to do in the big picture, not just what we're selling to various places and what hasn't got done. We've got to remember that we're talking about individuals.

I'd like to talk for a moment about a couple of individuals that I've talked to recently. One is a logger who…. When I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago, he'd worked for 20 days this year — 20 days — as someone who has a family to look after, someone who has a home to keep, someone who has hopes for a future in a community. And yet, in this present system where we have the monopolistic control of one company, he was able to work for 20 days.

It's not enough to keep somebody alive. It's not enough to keep a family going. It's no wonder that people look at those job ads and think about leaving B.C., because this B.C. government has done nothing — nothing — for the industry that was there as the backbone that created our province.
[ Page 13176 ]
 

It's not just the workers. It's not just the companies. There are the contractors. I met with a contractor the other day who is desperate. He has not been working since September — has laid off the six people he had working with him and is being completely squeezed out. He's looking at selling his home. He's looking at having to sell his business. He's 59 years old, and he says: "I've been doing this all my life. I've been doing this since I was 15. My dad did it. My granddad did it. What am I going to do?"

[1155]

This government has offered nothing. This government has looked at it as a spectator sport. This government was offered a deal with the Stephen Harper government of a softwood lumber agreement that does not work for our people.

I'd just like to cite one of the local newspapers in my community. The Gold River Record had a front page back in September before the big crisis really came. This was well before the international crisis and the recession that everybody's talking about started to impact. It was a picture with the headline "Future of the forest industry," and it was a real estate sign on TimberWest Forest lands.

I think that is the future that this government wants to have, that this government sees for the forest industry, that this government sees without looking at renegotiating the softwood deal and without looking at our forest industry and restructuring our forest industry. Using this opportunity, using the chance that we do have….

We do have chances. We do have opportunities. We're not stuck in the status quo. Let's use them. Let's look at our forest industry and say: how are we going to do it? How are we going to make it work that is relevant for the 21st century? How are we going to make it work that's relevant for the people who're working there and the communities and keep our communities vibrant? But instead, we're seeing people walking away. We have families who are going to hurt from this. We have communities that are going to hurt from this.

The only thing that this government has done is allow a sellout — a sellout of our lands.

Mr. Speaker, I note the hour and reserve my right to continue with my remarks after we adjourn debate. I reserve my place.

C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175