2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of


Debates of the
Legislative Assembly


(hansard)


Wednesday, October 7, 2009


Afternoon Sitting


Volume 4, Number 3

[ Page 1037 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009


The House met at 1:35 p.m.


[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]


Routine Business


Prayers.


Introductions by Members


C. James: I have three guests to introduce today. First are Ruth and Alan Ratcliffe, who are here visiting Victoria from the U.K. They're visiting Ruth's sister Dorothy Hayward from Victoria, a constituent of mine and also a longtime member who has worked at the Office of the Ombudsman since its inception. So she's worked for a number of different individuals. I'd like the House to please make them very welcome.


Hon. R. Hawes: Today in the gallery we have two gentlemen that were here earlier today with the Association for Mineral Exploration of British Columbia, making a presentation to the Finance Committee. That's Gavin Dirom, who's the head of the association, and Byng Giraud, who is a member of the board. Could the House please make those two gentlemen welcome.


R. Chouhan: Today we have Jenipher from the community health centre. Jenipher is a cross-cultural health promoter. She has a group of 25 African immigrant and refugee women touring the Parliament Buildings today and learning about the history of British Columbia. Please join me to welcome them all.


J. McIntyre: It is with great pride today that I would like the House to join me in welcoming two very special people in my life in the gallery with us today. They're Winn Barclay and my father, John Gillespie QC. They've flown from Ontario to be with us over Thanksgiving weekend and to see us in action.


I just want to acknowledge publicly that my dad has been the foundation in my life. I love you, and thank you for being here.


J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to introduce to the House Brian Fehr, a good friend of mine down from Vanderhoof. Brian is down meeting with a number of ministers and a number of MLAs over the course of the day. On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Valemount and Prince George–Mackenzie, I'd like the House to please make him welcome.


D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a very special guest and a good friend of mine, a good helper, Paul Keenleyside. He's a webmaster, and he runs many websites. He has his own website about the B.C. highways, which had more than 450,000 visitors, and he has his own website, started in 2005 until now, about the B.C. ferries, showing construction, launch and deckhouse assembly and sea trials and the inaugural cruise of the new ferries built at the FSG shipyard in Germany.


He's a prominent member of the community. He's always helping people out on many boards. He has been involved in about 60 different elections at the municipal level, provincial level and federal level. Would the House please make him very welcome.


Hon. K. Krueger: I want to introduce a guest who's brand-new to British Columbia. You may not be able to see him in the gallery. He's not very tall — 53 centimetres. His name is Noah Russ Costa. He was born at 3:40 this morning here in Victoria, 7 pounds 12½ ounces, to his beautiful mom, Claudia Costa. His father is Frank "Radar" Costa — he's bursting with pride — a long-serving member of our caucus staff. It's a pleasure to have him as my ministerial assistant. Would you all please welcome Noah Russ Costa.


Tributes


B.C. CANCER AGENCY RESEARCHERS


Hon. K. Falcon: Today I want to thank a special group of B.C. scientists and researchers. As we sit in the House today, the B.C. Cancer Agency in Vancouver is making a major announcement that is a watershed event in the history of research and treatment of breast cancer.


[1340]

For the first time in world history, B.C. Cancer Agency scientists have decoded all of the three billion letters in the DNA sequence of metastatic lobular breast cancer, which is responsible for about 10 percent of breast cancer incidents. This achievement helps unlock the secrets of how breast cancer begins and spreads and charts the path for developing a treatment for a disease that affects far too many women.


We are proud of the work of our B.C. scientists and researchers. I would ask all members of the House to applaud their efforts and their national and international leadership in this regard.


GREG KAMENKA


H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I stand here to share some sad news with the Legislative Assembly. Just five minutes ago I received a phone call from my constituency on the passing of Coun. Greg Kamenka of the district of Lillooet. He was the former mayor of the district of Lillooet, and he died suddenly yesterday.

[ Page 1038 ]

I would like the Speaker, on behalf of all of us, to pass on our condolences to Greg Kamenka's family and also to the district and the community of Lillooet.


EDITH CRISPIN


Hon. P. Bell: October 7 is an important day for Prince George. It marks the 105th birthday of Edith Crispin, who was originally born in Ontario. Edith recalls that her happiest-ever moment was getting married to her husband Roy on December 14, 1927, when they went and moved and homesteaded in Saskatchewan.


In 1935 they sold everything and took a Bennett buggy and left for British Columbia, where they have resided since. After the war the family eventually settled in Burnaby on a lot that Edith had purchased during the war using her pay from her job at Eaton's. Roy then built a house. Roy was a bit quirky and never seemed to finish anything, and that was the trademark of their house in Burnaby.


When asked what technological changes made the most significant difference in her 105-year life, she said that the crystal radio that they purchased in 1918 truly transformed them.


Edith now lives in the Prince George Chateau in my riding and enjoys her visits with many of her friends and visitors. She remains active today, attending most meal times in the dining room and occasionally going out to the mall for a visit.


Her family is remarkable too, including her daughter in Reno, five grandchildren, seven great-grandchildren and ten great-great-grandchildren.


After more than ten and a half decades, what's the secret to a fulfilling life, Mr. Speaker? Edith says: "I don't know. I just keep going, I guess." I'd ask the entire House to please congratulate Edith on her 105th birthday.


Introductions by Members


D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to introduce a very important person in my life. My father Doug McRae is in the House today. Not only was he a great high school teacher in the Comox Valley for a long time before he retired several years; he's also been a great grandfather to Gracie, and he's been a great father to me. I would like the House to make him welcome, please.


L. Reid: On behalf of the Speaker today, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery. They're participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.


I'm also pleased to welcome to the Legislature today Wayne and Barb Watson. They are joined by Douglas and Merrill Noseworthy, who are visiting from the glorious state of California. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.


H. Bloy: Hon. Speaker, It's my pleasure today to introduce a friend of the B.C. Liberal Party and a friend of mine in our ridings of Burnaby North, who's been very helpful over the years — Garth Evans. Would the House please make him welcome.


[1345]

N. Simons: I would just like to say hello to an individual who is unable to be here because he's actually currently living in a correctional facility in this province, and he's watching us today. I want to say hi to him and all his friends and hope that they take an interest in politics and the importance that it might play in their life both on the inside and when they come back out.


Introduction and
First Reading of Bills


Bill 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009


Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.


Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.


Motion approved.


Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, amends the following statutes: Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; Assessment Act; College and Institute Act; College of Applied Biology Act; Community Care Act; Health Professions Act; Judicial Compensation Act; Ministry of Environment Act; Municipalities Enabling And Validating Act (No. 3); Sheriff Act; Treaty First Nations Taxation Act; University Act; Vancouver Charter.


The bill also makes some minor housekeeping and clarifying amendments to a number of other statutes.


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


Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, 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.

[ Page 1039 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)


OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY AND EVENTS


J. McIntyre: In 128 days the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games will begin in Vancouver and Whistler. While we've been counting down since we were first awarded the games, the official countdown begins in earnest with the torch relay.


After the flame is lit in Olympia, it will be handed to representatives from Canada, and by October 30 it will be right here in Victoria for the start of Canada's relay.


As one of the most enduring symbols of the games, the torch's route is unique in its scope. The 2010 Olympic Torch Relay is the longest route ever in a single country, visiting more than a thousand communities across Canada, including 119 aboriginal communities. An honorary firekeeper will provide a traditional blessing in each community as the flame continues on its journey.


The torch relay will be spending more than a quarter of its route in B.C., and more than 3,500 British Columbians will serve as torchbearers, providing a legacy to them, their families and their communities. Over 268 communities in B.C. will be torch communities, allowing over 90 percent of B.C. residents to be within a one-hour drive of the route.


In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky residents from West Van and all the way up the Sea to Sky corridor will have the chance to see the Olympic flame as it travels through our area just prior to the opening ceremonies on February 12.


Across B.C., 50 communities were selected to be celebration communities, giving them the chance to showcase to residents and visitors what the Olympic spirit means to their communities with activities and performances.


In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky three communities were selected to be celebration communities — West Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler. I know they will use the opportunity to inspire and engage their residents as the games approach.


It's a historic time to be a British Columbian, and I urge all to take this opportunity to really experience and enjoy the excitement and spirit of the Olympics as the torch relay comes through your community. Congratulations to all the volunteers, organizers and sponsors. May the spirit live on.


KIWASSA NEIGHBOURHOOD
SERVICES ASSOCIATION


S. Simpson: In 1949 the Kiwassa club of Vancouver was established in an old fire hall on Vernon Drive in East Vancouver to serve the children and families with a focus on the growing immigrant community.


The Kiwassa club became Kiwassa Neighbourhood House, and it has evolved into a remarkable organization over its 60 years of service. Moving from Vernon Drive to Oxford Street in 1992, it has developed into one of the key organizations in the Hastings-Sunrise community — delivering children and youth programs, seniors programs, employment and settlement services and a food bank, as well as running four child care centres and two affordable housing developments.


Kiwassa plays a unique role as a multifaceted and resourced community institution. Kiwassa is a wonderful example of how community development truly should work. They have always seen themselves as a resource for the broader community that needs to be flexible and innovative in how it responds to community needs.


I know the support they provided to those wanting to increase community access to Hastings Park, opposing a concrete batch plant beside New Brighton Park or supporting the Trinity Street Lights Competition fundraiser. Kiwassa always provided administrative support, resources and encouragement, as well as sound advice when tough decisions were being made.


[1350]

Community leaders across Hastings-Sunrise could point to many other examples of the critical role Kiwassa has played in their success on other issues. Their success can be traced to a wonderful committed staff under the leadership of the current executive director, Nancy McRitchie, and her predecessor Steve Boyce, both of whom built great teams that have served our community well.


The other key to Kiwassa is its volunteer board of directors. Some of the very best community leaders I've had the privilege to have known have found their way onto the Kiwassa board over the years. Their leadership and keen understanding of community has provided the vision for what a neighbourhood house should be, and the staff has faithfully delivered that vision through their programs on the ground.


After 60 years of service, I know I speak for the thousands who have benefited from Kiwassa over those years in saying: "Congratulations on your accomplishments, and here's to 60 more years of Kiwassa serving East Vancouver."


RICHMOND CHINESE COMMUNITY SOCIETY


R. Howard: It is my pleasure today to rise to speak to the 20th anniversary of a very special community group that has strong roots in Richmond. The Richmond Chinese Community Society is celebrating 20 years of service to the Richmond community. From humble beginnings two decades ago, this non-profit charitable organization has grown to become one of the premiere community organizations today.

[ Page 1040 ]

RCCS was originally set up to involve the Chinese community in decision-making with the city and to further involve the Richmond Chinese community in various activities in our city. They have stayed true to their roots and their cause, and today they have a membership of approximately 1,000.


This very hard-working and successful group hosts many community events such as the lunar festival, the seniors health fair and their very successful community dinner, to name just a few. They also hold many different classes that bring people out of their homes and into the community. Through their educational seminars and exercise and dance classes, RCCS provides opportunities to interact with others, learn new skills and keep fit.


In 2005 RCCS was awarded the very first city of Richmond community achievement award for outstanding contributions to intercultural diversity in our city. The longstanding executive director, Henry Beh, and his wife, Glenda, team up with a very hard-working volunteer board of directors, including this year's president, Clara Chow, and vice-president Nancy Li. They've also started a new youth group, which we're all very excited about.


I ask the House to join me in congratulating RCCS on 20 years of service to our community.


COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH


N. Simons: I rise today to recognize the province of British Columbia's proclamation of this month of October as Community Living Month. This proclamation gives us the opportunity to formally recognize and publicly acknowledge people in our communities who have developmental disabilities, as well as to acknowledge those who work with them.


People with developmental disabilities are those who have had a chronic condition since childhood which will require that they receive lifelong supports to live as independently as possible in all aspects of their lives. Those who work with them include their caregivers, their siblings, their families and their friends. Their community includes their coaches, their co-workers and bosses, their bus drivers, folks at the grocery store, their school friends, ferry workers, teachers. And the list goes on.


In fact, the list includes everyone, the entire community. After all, the proclamation recognizes the importance of community inclusion. When I use the word "family," I do so in the broadest sense, so let's today pay a special tribute to the families and extended families of people with developmental disabilities.


We often marvel at their strength and courage, their resilience and their patience. We're impressed by their ability to juggle complicated schedules that include more doctor visits, more therapy sessions, more appointments than any of us would believe or care to imagine. We hold them up on a pedestal as examples of extraordinary strength and perseverance.


But they are regular families doing regular things, often struggling with unforeseen challenges with grace and with skill. They are the families of teachers, firefighters, politicians and business owners, actors, hockey coaches, single parents and musicians. They are regular families in this community.


While we marvel at their resilience and admire their advocacy skills, we can do more. Let's recognize and support essential community programs that exist to make the lives of people with developmental disabilities more fulfilling but that also provide their families with the opportunities to see their loved ones achieve their fullest potential.


[1355]

OKANAGAN WINE FESTIVAL


J. Slater: The Okanagan Wine Festival, held annually during the harvest time, focuses on wine, food, education and the arts. In 1996 the Okanagan Wine Festival received an international recognition, as it was ranked among the top 100 events in North America by the prestigious American Bus Association, a ranking that it continues to receive today.


It is important to note that the Okanagan is the only wine-producing region of the world that hosts this festival during its harvest season. The festival provides an experience for everyone who loves fabulous wine accompanied by great locally produced food and unique events.


One of those events is the Festival of the Grape held last Saturday in Oliver, the wine capital of Canada. This annual event was first launched in 1997. This is an all-day family event organized by the South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce and consists of more than 30 wineries, live music and entertainment, kids crafts and games, a grape-stomp competition, wine seminars and art displays.


If you missed the Festival of the Grape, you will be able to attend the grand finale consumer tasting event being hosted by Valley First Credit Union — Mr. Speaker, as you know — held in Penticton on October 9 and 10. This is a wine tour under one roof — sip, sample, spit and dance. This event is for those who want to explore some of the finest wines for the first time, as well as for those who want to expand their wine knowledge.


There will be over 60 wineries present and 240 different wines to sample. Take this opportunity to learn more about local wines and the foods they best complement. As the Okanagan Wine Festival continues until the 11th of this month, I want to urge everyone to take advantage of more than 165 events in this area.


BREASTFEEDING CHALLENGE AND
SUPPORT FOR BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS


J. Kwan: The sight of a baby usually brings a warm smile from members of the public. We can't help ourselves. When we see a little baby, we go ga-ga and goo-goo, even
[ Page 1041 ]
though everyone knows they often look like wrinkled little monkeys — yes, my children included. But still, when you see a new baby, it's a beautiful sight.


You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. You yourself are enjoying your second grandchild. The slightest mention of them, and your face lights up. See what I mean? [Laughter.]


On October 3 proud moms and dads gathered together with their babies at the Trout Lake Community Centre to celebrate in the world breastfeeding challenge. This international event began in 2001, and by last year there were over 7,600 children feeding in 19 countries at 300 sites with over 20,000 supporters at 11 o'clock. On last Saturday when I arrived at the Trout Lake Community Centre, I received a sticker, and it read: "I make milk. What's your superpower?"


Breast milk contains close to 200 compounds that fight infection, help the immune system mature, aid in digestion and support brain growth. Breastfeeding helps to lower the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, not to mention the incredible feeling of hugging your baby close to your heart while you're nursing — the ultimate bonding experience.


The WHO recommends that mothers nurse their babies until they're two years old. So why do we still hear of stories of roadblocks and obstacles for nursing mothers? Last year a woman in Vancouver was hustled off to a back room at H&M when she was breastfeeding her two-month-old baby in the store.


In Minneapolis a woman returning from a two-day business trip was forced to pour out her two-day supply of milk by the airport security. I myself was not allowed on a flight to Kamloops for an all-day caucus meeting because I had my breast pump and these specialized ice packs with me. Due to the Minneapolis incident, a human rights complaint was filed, and the U.S. Transport Security Administration reclassified human milk as liquid medication. Indeed, breast milk is like liquid gold to a nursing mom.


Let's break through the barriers. Let's celebrate the magic of breastfeeding, and let's just do what the old Madonna song says: "Express yourself."


Mr. Speaker: The extra 30 seconds was for my grandson, the angel.


[1400]

Oral Questions


EDUCATION FUNDING


C. James: Yesterday the B.C. parent advisory council, B.C. School Trustees Association, B.C. Teachers Federation and the Canadian Union of Public Employees came together to express their concerns about the B.C. Liberal education cuts.


This is what they said those cuts will mean: "Long-term instability, larger class sizes, reduced support for students, including those with special needs. School sporting events will be at risk. Parent advisory councils will have to reduce support for student supplies, field trips, computers, library books. Schools in poorer communities will be hardest hit."


My question is to the Minister of Education. Time and again we've seen her stand up in this House and cover up for the Liberal failures on education. Today, with all of these voices speaking out, will the minister finally stand up and admit she's wrong?


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to get up and talk about one of the finest education systems in the world. These are our valued partners. These are our partners with whom we work. These are people like everyone in this House — everyone, yourself and everyone else, who strongly believes in our education system and how much we need to do for our students. We work with these partners. I've met with these partners, and I'll continue to do so.


Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.


C. James: I would suggest to the minister that she's forgetting something. Listen to the partners. Listen to the partners in education, who are expressing their concerns about real cuts and real impacts to the system.


During the election we heard the B.C. Liberals say they were going to protect education. What's the result? Cuts to annual facility grants, cuts to parent advisory councils, cuts to sports programs, unfunded costs like the HST and increases in MSP premiums.


Again to the minister: will she stand up today and explain to B.C.'s parents, to teachers, to school workers and trustees how gutting education and hitting a cash-strapped system with new costs lives up to their commitment to protect education? 


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're certainly hearing about some new math here in the House today. We are funding education this year at a record level — $4.5 billion going to classrooms in this province this year, an $84 million increase over last year's funding. That's in spite of the fact that we expect about 7,000 fewer students in B.C. classrooms this fall, a declining enrolment that's the reality of the demographics of this province and North America.


Not only are we funding education to that degree, but we're also spending $447 million in new schools, in upgrades and in seismic projects this year alone.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[ Page 1042 ]

C. James: Is the Minister of Education saying to teachers and support staff who see the impacts every single day that they're wrong? Is the Minister of Education saying to school trustees who are elected to govern the system on behalf of their communities that they are wrong? Is the minister saying to parents who know that if their child is in an overcrowded classroom and doesn't have the resources, they don't get that year back…? Is the minister saying that those people are wrong?


Another person who's speaking out is the chair of the Cowichan Valley school district. They've written to the minister. They asked the minister to meet with them. The minister refused. They sent a second request and said to the minister: "On behalf of the board of education, I'd like to reiterate our request to meet with you. We can accommodate your schedule."


Again to the minister: why is she refusing to listen to the Cowichan school board, to parents, to trustees, to educators in the system? Why won't she listen to their concerns about the problems in the education system?


[1405]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have been pleased to meet with many of our education partners since I've been appointed. I have met with the B.C. Teachers Federation, with the trustees and with all of the other partners. I'm certainly open and willing and will be meeting with them again.


Clearly, when we meet, we exchange ideas, and we listen to each other as we talk. But one of the things we will be doing this fall is reconvening the Learning Roundtable so that the partners can sit and talk about the important issues that face our education system.


This talk about not funding education…. This year alone we're making record investments once again, including in early learning where we're investing in new StrongStart centres. The list goes on and on, and I am pleased to talk about it.


R. Austin: This minister is more focused on covering up for B.C. Liberal failures than addressing the kinds of concerns that were raised in this letter. The fact is that it's our school districts and trustees that have to bear the brunt of this government's mismanagement of the public education system.


My question to the minister is simple. When is she going to stop covering up for B.C. Liberal incompetence and start listening to and acting on the concerns of B.C.'s parents, the teachers, the school workers and their elected representatives?


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This government has clearly demonstrated its ability to listen to what's important to British Columbians. That's why we have record investments in schools year after year after year — $4.5 billion this year — and we're investing in things that British Columbians say really matter to them, things like StrongStart centres. There are two of those StrongStart B.C. centres in the member opposite's riding alone.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


The member has a supplemental.


R. Austin: The trouble is this. The B.C. Liberals give with one hand and take with the other, and they don't give as much as they take. They continue to add costs to our system. The facilities grant was far greater than the increase in per-pupil student funding. MSP premiums come on top of that. H1N1 comes on top of that. All of these are increased costs, not to mention the HST.


Again to the minister: when will she commit to acting on the concerns of groups right across this province, and will she act today to protect public education as was promised in the recent election?


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm happy to review these issues — no problem. We can talk about them again. The annual facilities grant…. I will remind the members opposite of what this is. This is a grant that goes out, which is for maintaining school properties. It's for new lighting. It's for painting. It's for projects which we've said to school districts this year….


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


Continue, Minister.


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've said this year…. We would like school districts to use reserves, to slow down their projects, to back off on these projects for this year. We certainly have invested….


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly have continued to invest record amounts, though, in our schools in things such as early learning. That's why we're turning…. And next year we'll be funding full-day kindergarten, again something British Columbians have told us we need to do, we must do, and we are doing it.


COQUITLAM SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING


D. Thorne: Let's just look at how this government's policies are hurting public education in my community. In a letter to the minister, the chair of school district
[ Page 1043 ]
43 expresses the board's disappointment with unilateral funding announcements and adjustments to previously announced grants with no concern for the impact — unilateral announcements that lead to cuts, new pressure and chaos. That's how this B.C. Liberal government likes to do its business.


[1410]

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why did she refuse to consult the elected representatives, the parents and the teachers in my riding before she saddled the school district with cuts and new costs?


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm very pleased to talk about the investments that we have made in the member opposite's riding. Let's talk about Centennial Secondary. A full replacement of the school — a $49 million investment.


Ranch Park Elementary — seismic upgrades. It's proceeding now. A $5.75 million investment. Baker Drive Elementary — seismic upgrades, $5.3 million of investments.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


Continue, Minister.


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are challenging times for all those who govern. For the provincial government, for school districts — without question — there is uncertainty with respect to the economy. This year we don't have more money to invest beyond what we've already committed. That is what we are discussing with the school districts. We need to find out how we can best meet students' needs within the resources that we have.


Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.


D. Thorne: You know, that's all fine and good, but I'd like to remind the minister.…


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.


Member, just take your seat for a second so we can hear.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


Continue, Member.


D. Thorne: I'll finish my sentence. I was going to say, to remind the minister, that it takes money to run those new schools, and that's something we have a short supply of. Just another example of B.C. Liberal incompetence when it comes to running the education system. We have nothing.


As my colleague stated a few moments ago, giving with one hand and taking with the other is causing total havoc in the Coquitlam school district — the third largest in British Columbia. The annual facilities grant — a $5.3 million cut. PAC funding cut in half. Sports programs gone. Even more importantly, this school district alone will pay for unfunded salary increases to the tune of $800,000 this year alone. Untold thousands of other…


Mr. Speaker: Member, question. Member, pose your question, please.


D. Thorne: …unfunded cuts. Again to the minister: will she put an end to her one-sided decisions, and will she work with the Coquitlam school district to clean up the mess that this government has caused in my community's public education system?


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I expect I'm not the only one who feels a bit of irony here coming from the member opposite — a government that, when they were in power, froze capital spending. There was no capital spending for schools.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.


Members. Members.


Continue, Minister.


[1415]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We do continue, in spite of the economic challenges, to invest in our students. We are increasing funding this year — 84 million additional dollars in spite of declining enrolment. That's the reality of what we're doing. It's there in the budget, and the school districts are all receiving at least the same amount of funding, if not more, in spite of declining enrolment.


Getting back to Coquitlam-Maillardville, to the member opposite's riding, we've invested in Parkland Elementary seismic upgrades — $1.2 million.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.


KAMLOOPS-THOMPSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
FUNDING AND SCHOOL CLOSING


H. Lali: The minister reads from a cheat sheet about opposition members' ridings. I wonder if it includes the….


An Hon. Member: A cheat sheet?

[ Page 1044 ]

H. Lali: Background notes.


I wonder if the minister's notes also include the 200 schools that they have closed across British Columbia. Will she actually go there and tell those people in those communities how it's education that they are protecting?


This Liberal government is cutting $3 million worth of funding from the Kamloops-Thompson school district, including the closing that they're proposing of 12 schools. One of them is in Logan Lake. They want to combine the elementary and the secondary school in Logan Lake and ship all of the grade 11s and 12s on a 2½-hour round trip to go to school in Kamloops. This is happening at a time when they need to actually improve their grades to get into various colleges and universities across this province.


I'd like the Minister of Education to tell this House and tell us how the Liberals can actually find $500,000 for the Premier's Olympics party, but they can't find $48,000 to keep the Logan Lake kids in Logan Lake schools.


Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Since 2001 in British Columbia, we've experienced a significant decline in enrolment. We have 60,000 fewer students enrolled in British Columbia schools than we did in 2001. This is the reality of the demographics in British Columbia and in North America.


School boards have a challenging role to play. They have to balance the needs of the students in their areas, and they have the autonomy to do that. In some cases, they do make the difficult decision that what is best for their district is for them to close schools when they have so many fewer students enrolled. It's a difficult decision. It's one that school districts have the autonomy to do, and they do it when it's necessary.


EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM
FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM


M. Karagianis: The Minister of Children and Families questioned the effectiveness of the early intensive behavioural intervention program. Then she admitted that, in fact, autistic children do benefit from the therapy. Once again, today families have rallied to the Legislature looking to get the government's ear.


To the minister. I'd like to ask her: instead of cutting funding for the early intensive behaviour intervention program, will she take the $20 million from the fancy new research centre, meet with families and work with families and providers, go back to the table and try and find a way to find solutions that actually help autistic children here in the province of British Columbia? Will she do that?


Hon. M. Polak: Over the next four months our ministry will be working closely with the families who are affected by the EIBI change and with their service providers to ensure that they are able to have the help and support they need to transition to our autism funding program.


But make no mistake about it. This autism centre that is proposed is far more than bricks and mortar. This is a centre that will provide an invaluable connection to families in rural and isolated communities which right now don't have access to the kind of information and support that they need.


Mr. Speaker, this centre will impact the lives of thousands of families across this province challenged by autism.


[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.


M. Karagianis: Once again, we see the government going off and making no sense out of their actions. On the one hand they are cutting a very effective program, which will affect community research centres like the Queen Alexandra, and on the other hand we see the minister stand up and justify some fancy new research centre.


What the families in British Columbia want is for her to sit down and find a way to deliver effective intervention services for autistic children in the province. That is what they are asking. That's what they deserve, and the minister needs to say….Will she sit down with these families and find a better solution than just pulling the rug out from under these families?


Hon. M. Polak: There is no question that over the next four months we will be working closely with the families who will be experiencing what we know is a difficult change for them. But this is not about just those 70 families. This is about the more than 6,000 children with autism that we serve in the system each and every year.


I want to remind the member that far from there being cuts to programs for children with autism, our ministry alone has increased its autism budget this year by $1.6 million. That takes us to an amount that is now ten times what it was when this government took office.


If we include the $3.4 million from Health and the $72 million invested in the Ministry of Education for autism programs, we spend annually more than $120 million to help support children with autism in this province.


PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES
AUTHORITY CONTRACT
WITH JONATHAN BURNS


A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health Services with respect to untendered electronic health contracts and in particular the personal services contracts given by
[ Page 1045 ]
the Ministry of Health and its agencies to Dr. Jonathan Burns. 


The official opposition has learned that in February 2007, at the same time Dr. Burns was being paid $30,000 a month to advise the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health, at the same time that he was continuing to charge MSP as a doctor and at the same time as he served as CEO of WebMed with contracts with all of the health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority gave a contract to Dr. Burns at nearly $200 an hour — $6,000 a week — to be their e-health adviser, presumably to lobby himself.


Can the minister tell the House whether the substantial contract given to Dr. Burns by the PHSA was tendered?


Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I've been in the House long enough to hear these kinds of wild allegations by this member over a whole range of issues. What I will tell the member is that I'll get the information for him. My understanding is that all of those contracts were tendered in accordance with the rules that govern the tendering of contracts.


Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.


A. Dix: I'll be very interested to hear how that contract was tendered from the PHSA. I'd love to see where that tender existed, because I can tell the Minister of Health that it wasn't tendered.


Dr. Burns was being paid three ways by his colleague the former Minister of Health at the time and by the ministry — as a doctor, as an e-health adviser and as a CEO of a company.


Can the Minister of Health explain why the PHSA needs to hire a guy they were already paying $30,000 a month to be their e-health adviser and lobby the government? Can he tell us who authorized this contract, and does he think paying one guy four ways by one ministry is an appropriate way to do business?


Hon. K. Falcon: As I said, I would be happy to get the information for the member. But as I've said, I've sat in this House for eight years, and I've heard virtually every wild allegation that's been put forward by that member turn out not to be the case.


[1425]

So we will get the facts. We will share those facts with the member opposite, and I won't be surprised if, in fact, the facts depart very clearly from what the member is alleging.


COWICHAN TRIBES AND
VANOC OLYMPIC CLOTHING LINE


B. Routley: Last week VANOC unveiled the clothing line for the 2010 Olympic Games. Prominent in the design of the clothing was the world-famous Cowichan sweater. VANOC has not brought in the Cowichan Tribes to seek approval to use the design. Nor has VANOC provided an opportunity for Cowichan knitters to produce the wool garments.


Could the Olympics Minister please explain exactly why the Cowichan Valley first nations have been excluded yet again from the economic opportunities providing authentic Cowichan sweaters for the Olympics?


Hon. M. McNeil: I am not aware of the process that VANOC used in order to secure this contract, but I'm sure that if the member opposite was to contact VANOC, they'd be very willing to tell him.


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


Interjection.


Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Member.


The member has a supplemental. 


B. Routley: I do, brother Speaker — hon. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker: Member.


B. Routley: I want to add that VANOC has threatened legal action against businesses that use the Olympic logo or even use the word "Olympic" in their business name, yet they made no effort whatsoever to accommodate the creators of the Cowichan design or to provide employment for Cowichan artisans.


Will the minister commit today — it's the Minister for Olympics — to ensuring the Cowichan people are shown the respect that they rightly deserve, and will she ensure that the benefits from the Olympic clothing sales flow to those that actually inspired their creation?


Hon. M. McNeil: I would like to remind the member opposite that these Olympic Games have the first partnership ever with aboriginal peoples, and we are very proud of that. The four host first nations are working very closely in partnership with VANOC on a very strong art program as well as other partnerships.


This government is proud to be the host province for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in just 128 days from now. I'd also like to remind the member opposite that these games are going to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time we need it the most.


K. Corrigan: Well, if the minister is suggesting that we need to go talk to VANOC every time we have a
[ Page 1046 ]
question about the Olympics, I'm wondering why we need a minister for the Olympics.


Two years ago the Cowichan News Leader–Pictorial launched a campaign to have the Cowichan sweater form part of the Olympic uniform. Now VANOC has used the idea — and that's the nice way to put it — with no benefits or acknowledgment to the Cowichan people.


My question is for the Minister of State for the Olympics. How is this consistent with the Olympic ideal of fair play?


Interjections.


Mr. Speaker: Members.


[1430]

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to remind the members opposite of the great partnership that the four host first nations have with VANOC, and they're working closely. I would also like to remind the members opposite that leaders around the world last week, as we saw, would welcome the opportunity to host the winter games that we are so lucky to have in just 128 days.


At UBCM last week I heard from many communities — 105 of them around the province who are vying to be GamesTown 2010. I wonder when the members opposite are going to join this side of the House in welcoming the Olympic Games to British Columbia.


[End of question period.]


Orders of the Day


Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and in this chamber second reading of Bill 9, the Wood First Act, 2009.


Second Reading of Bills


Bill 9 — WOOD FIRST ACT


Hon. P. Bell: I move Bill 9 be read a second time.


Bill 9 encourages a cultural shift in the way that we use forest products and wood products, particularly in large commercial and institutional buildings. Bill 9 would require organizations that receive provincial funding for building projects to utilize best practices and implement the maximum potential amount of wood that can be used in any given project.


There is a tremendous potential for us to increase the global consumption of wood, of forest products, of value-added forest products as a result of this bill. Currently in North America only about 19 percent of the commercial and institutional marketplace utilizes wood, yet all of the science tells us that 93 percent of the projects that are built across North America could, in fact, be built out of wood and forest products. This is a substantial gap.


[L. Reid in the chair.]


Not only that, but the real opportunity exists for a far more stable environment. Residential construction tends to have large swings in terms of the number of homes being built, as we've witnessed over the last number of years. We've gone from two million homes per year in the U.S. down to just 550,000 homes. The commercial institutional market is far more stable and doesn't see those sorts of dramatic swings.


On top of that, I will say that it is far more processed, more technical, more manufactured products that are used in the institutional and commercial sector. That's only good news for employment in British Columbia because it requires the further manufacturing of these forest products and a far higher level of employment.


We see this as a significant shift towards the value-added opportunity that we've long looked for here in British Columbia.


By applying the wood-first lens to all provincially funded projects, it brings to play about $3 billion worth of annual capital, whether it's a school, a hospital, an office building or one of the many structures that the province builds each and every year.


We need to lead the way, and that's what's really important here. British Columbia needs to demonstrate that we're prepared to put our money where our mouth is, that we believe very much in the large commercial and institutional opportunity. There are many benefits to that.


[1435]

If we lead the way, we truly can demonstrate to the globe what's possible. We have tremendous examples that we will be able to share with the world in just 127 days, Madam Speaker. The Richmond speed skating oval, which is located virtually right beside your riding or in your riding, is a tremendous example of that particular opportunity.


I must share also that the beams in that structure are tremendous, made with Interior Douglas fir milled at Kalesnikoff Lumber in the Kootenays, manufactured at Structurlam in Penticton and Okanagan Falls. The plywood that's on that roof was actually manufactured in Madam Speaker's own riding. Richmond Plywood — another great success story of a British Columbia–based forest company. Then, of course, the mountain pine beetle lumber was manufactured in the Cariboo. So a tremendous story in that particular facility.


But that's not the only one. There's the Squamish Adventure Centre, the Whistler Public Library, the Percy Norman pool — many other facilities — the new con-
[ Page 1047 ]
vention centre, which truly demonstrate the opportunities that come with building with wood.


By demonstrating Wood First here in British Columbia, we also believe that we can influence other governments to move in this direction. We've also been in discussions with the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. I've had brief discussions with our federal government. We see that this sort of thing could move right across Canada.


Interestingly, I attended a small conference last week of wood manufacturers from around the world, wood marketers, and they believe that there is an opportunity to extend this into the United States, New Zealand, Australia and other jurisdictions as well. So we're very excited about that.


Bill 9 also capitalizes on the green benefits of wood construction. Wood is the only building material that's renewable, sustainable, climate-friendly, lightweight, strong and cost-effective — all in one package. Wood is just a tremendous winner. Wood requires the least amount of energy to manufacture in the manufacture process, and using wood can offset climate change through carbon sequestration and, more properly said, carbon storage of previously sequestered carbon as a result of the growth of the tree.


An interesting little statistic: every tonne of wood materials used in construction saves about 5.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Putting this another way, 300 board feet of wood saves a single tonne of carbon dioxide.


Wood has superior insulating qualities as well. Building a mid-sized building, a school, out of wood can have a significant impact in terms of overall sequestered carbon. There was a study done on a middle school in Prince George built out of wood that stated that the benefit to the environment was the same as removing 10,620 cars from the road for a year — a truly dramatic number. Wood has superior insulating qualities — 400 times better than steel, 15 times better than concrete. It creates a far more energy-efficient building.


Bill 9 does fulfil one of the recommendations of the Working Round Table on Forestry — a commitment to using wood first. I think that setting this example truly will lead the way globally. It builds on our commitments from the February throne speech, and it will create a revenue opportunity across British Columbia. Whether you are a forest-dependent or a non-forest-dependent community, we all win from this initiative. It also promotes using a renewable and climate-friendly building product.


It brings us one more step forward to positioning British Columbia as a world leader in wood construction, in design and education.


N. Macdonald: Bill 9, the Wood First Act, is two pages long, and it is filled with language that is, to put it mildly, equivocal. The act is really — and I think the minister would agree with this — more an expression of sentiment, more a communication strategy than a real forestry strategy.


If you actually look at the bill and read what it says, the equivocation is clear. The minister did spend most of his speech, quite appropriately, talking about the importance of promoting the wood industry and the value of wood as a wonderful construction product. It is. It has proven itself over the centuries as an important product that British Columbia produces in a particularly efficient and effective manner.


[1440]

But any idea that the act that's in front of this House today is going to be in any way effective, I think, is really to raise expectations that are simply, again, not going to be met by B.C. Liberals with their forestry policy.


If you look at the bill — as I say, two pages long…. Included in that is a list of three definitions that are fairly straightforward. There is a purpose which talks about requiring wood, but that purpose is not reflected in any of the remaining two sections of the bill. Best practices, section 3, talks about…. The minister may "recommend best practices." He may "advise on the form and content of agreements." It then goes on with the ability, in section 4, to make up regulations.


Equivocal to say the least. Is there any guarantee that it's going to be B.C. wood that is used? Well, what we have seen with this government…. We can go to an example that was highlighted during the election, where you had signs that were up advertising a government project. Was the wood from B.C.? It was not. It was American wood.


Is there anything in this bill or anything that the minister is going to do that is going to actually make sure that it's B.C. wood used? The answer is: likely not. No. Is there anything, actually, that the government can do within regulation to make sure that it's not from another jurisdiction? Is that going to be addressed with this bill? No. It won't be.


We have NAFTA. We have TILMA. We have other agreements. How much wood are we actually talking about here? Even if the three billion identified as institutional building was going to have elements of it with more wood, how much are we actually talking about? That value-added industry that the minister talks about? Well, that value-added industry has collapsed with this government. There have been over 60 value-added milling operations that were there when this government took power that are no longer there.


The type of goods that the minister is talking about were at some point produced in British Columbia. Very often many of those producers are no longer there. That is a direct result of B.C. forest policies — of policies deliberately put in place by this government — where there were promises of jobs, and there were promises of
[ Page 1048 ]
community stability, but the results have been a consistent failure. There has been unprecedented failure during the term and time of this B.C. Liberal government. You really cannot turn yourself away from those facts.


So we have Bill 9, which is supposed to be part, you would think, of some strategy. Really, as I say, it's more a communication plan than anything else. It is an indication of sentiment.


Well, the minister has stood up and talked about his sentiment about using wood first. But what British Columbians are looking for — in particular rural British Columbians, who are most directly impacted by the collapse of the forest industry — is for a leadership that's different than simply expressions of sentiment. They're looking for some actions, for some answers. What we have seen over the past eight, eight-and-a-half years are consistent expressions of sentiment, expressions of promise and then the realities that are consistently, completely different, that turn out to be failures.


In 2001, and I'll just read from the New Era document…. It's an interesting read. If anybody goes back to the New Era document, sees what was promised and compares it to the reality that we face here in British Columbia now, you'll see that it's not just 2009 where pre-election promises are made and broken; it's a pattern that goes back to 2001.


From that document, that B.C. Liberal platform in 2001, we had a promise from the Premier to make a leading-edge forest industry that's globally recognized for its environmental stewardship — a talk about the forest industry being strong with a bright future for forest workers.


Well, there are 25,000 fewer of those forest workers since that new-era promise — 25,000 fewer. Dozens and dozens of mills shut.


[1445]

You have value-added basically collapsing. You have workers abandoned. You have communities abandoned. You have safety degraded in the woods. You have environmental degradation. You have waste left on the floor. It's described as waste, but it's usable — but a buildup of waste.


All of that…. What the minister and this government have to put in front of us is this two-page communication strategy where there's a sentimental attachment to wood, where the minister may or might consider or should advise to do something with wood. It is hardly something that's going to inspire confidence in communities and with workers that are looking for some sign of leadership from this government. It has been absent over the past eight or nine years.


There has been study after study, with precious little that has come to show for it. We had $1 million spent on a round table that finished a long time ago, and what do we have to show for it? Two pages with a sentiment about: it'd be great to use wood.


Well, it would be wonderful to use wood. We all agree that it's a wonderful product. This building and this room highlight the beauty of wood and its functionality. But that is not going to solve any of the very serious issues that are out there for British Columbians.


I think what's clear is that British Columbians are looking for a leadership that addresses a number of issues that forest communities and forest workers want addressed. There should be bills in front of this House, and there should be activity from this government that deals with the very serious problems facing workers right now.


We have lost 25,000 family-supporting jobs, and these are people that are…. If you come from a rural community, they are our friends; they are our neighbours. They're people that we would play hockey with. They are often relatives. So we see, in rural communities, the impact of an industry that is facing difficult times.


We would expect that instead of a bill like this, we would have real action in terms of supporting those people who have contributed so much to the wealth of this province, contributed incredible amounts of money.


There was a time when you would look at a budget from a government in B.C., and you would see a forest industry that contributed over a billion dollars. If you go back before this government, you'll see figures of $1.4 billion in revenue from the forest industry.


What do we see now? We see a forest industry that cannot even pay for the Ministry of Forests. For the first time ever, the Ministry of Forests is losing money. B.C. Timber Sales — losing money. And workers idle when they should be working.


What you would look for is…. Instead of something like this, you would look for action from a government, for leadership that would say: "We value the workers that have provided the wealth. We will keep that workforce looked after. We will make sure that there is an industrial infrastructure when markets improve."


Instead of that, instead of any assistance for workers, what do we have? We have nothing. The federal government put in $129 million. We asked repeatedly, on this side of the House, for the provincial government to match that, to do something for workers, to show some initiative, and we got nothing — not a penny for workers. Not a penny.


What do we have? We now have a Wood First Act, Bill 9, which, instead of any support for workers, is going to have the minister — "perhaps, maybe, if I have to" — recommend how to use wood.


Even within the bill it says that it is going to require…. But it doesn't. So the purpose doesn't even match the sections that follow that would somehow make wood necessary for the building of institutions.


You also have all of the capacity that this government has allowed to slip away. With the 2003 revitalization strategy, there was a promise from this government that
[ Page 1049 ]
you would create jobs, that by giving the companies exactly what they wanted — companies that, by the way, are huge donors to the B.C. Liberals…. 


[1450]

Give them exactly what they wanted. The promise was that the public good that would flow from it would be jobs, community stability. Instead, what do we have? We have over 40, 50 milling operations that are either shut down permanently or for an extended period, or have been shut down and taken into pieces.


We have lost unprecedented capacity. In 2003 we got rid of appurtenance, the requirement of the old social contract where the forest that was around a community, that the community had a connection with…. There was an old social contract that went back to the time of the Social Credit with W.A.C. Bennett — that idea that you would mill in an area that produced the wood. It was a social contract that people appreciated in rural British Columbia, and it pointed to a strategy.


It pointed to a government that took forestry seriously and tried to sit down and think and figure out what the industry would look like, where forestry was an important part of what a government would think about. But it's not anything that has been on the front of the mind or as a priority for this government or for this Premier. It is whatever the companies asked for, and what the companies came and asked for was that they wanted to get rid of appurtenance. "Okay, fine. It's given."


Is there any thought to the impacts or how that's going to affect communities, how it's going to affect workers? Precious little. The impacts that have followed speak to the failure of that policy. It hasn't produced jobs. It hasn't increased the number of mills. It's led to their closure, and what we have is, as an example of a strategy, Bill 9. 


So Social Credit, NDP — times when forestry was taken seriously — you had legislation that was real, legislation that looked to find solutions. What do we get here? We get this, as I said, Bill 9, which is more of a communications, sentimental act rather than any real act — anything that's going to make any difference on the ground at all.


With the revitalization strategy the companies were able to get de facto control over much of the public lands. You had no ministerial approval for oversight of sales and ownership changes. You got rid of the automatic 5 percent takeback on cuts on transfers. You had the ability for TFLs to be subdivided, and you had a payment of $250 million to create B.C. Timber Sales, which this year is losing money. You had a replacement to the Forest Practices Code with a self-regulating setup that companies themselves report on how they're doing.


Is it any wonder that we've had environmental degradation? Is it any wonder that forest, public land, is left with a huge amount of waste on the ground? An interesting figure for people, and it's one that, if you go to Ben Parfitt…. He supplied a report on it.


If people are wondering just how efficiently we use the wood in the forest now, the B.C. Liberals changed, in that revitalization plan, the requirement that went back an extended period of time to actually take marketable logs out of the forest. These are logs that could be used for pulp. They could be used as sawlogs. But the companies didn't want to do that, and this government agreed with those that donated to them and said, "Okay, fine; we'll put in place take or pay," and allowed the companies to pay a nominal fee to leave perfectly good wood in the forest.


Now, does this bill go to address any of those concerns? If you took the wood that was left in the forest over the past five years in British Columbia and put those logs on logging trucks and lined those logging trucks up, they would stretch from here, at the steps of Victoria, all the way across to Halifax and back. That's how much wood is being left in British Columbia forests and not used — not used to produce jobs. Left to rot.


[1455]

That goes back to decisions made in this House by B.C. Liberals in 2003 when they gave the companies exactly what they wanted with no consideration of what the public good is. 


What benefits do we want from public lands? When you have a minister that understands problems like that and a government that is constantly told that these problems exist, you would expect some action. I think most British Columbians, when they look to their forest and they see the opportunities that are there, especially if they come from a rural community where they see the difficulties that families are facing in the collapse of the forest industry, there's some expectation that a government would pay attention and put together a strategy that would actually assist in creating jobs.


But is there anything done with the waste? There is nothing. Is there regulatory change that might force the wood to be brought in and used? No, the government doesn't want to do that because their donors don't want them to do that. Even if you just went to a marketplace solution and made it so that there was a cost to leaving the wood there through a carbon tax — put a carbon tax on the wood that's left there, make it a cost — then you would have the wood come out and be put to some use.


Instead it's left there. It's wasted, and it is left, with problems created for forest fire management and a whole host of other issues.


So you would expect that instead of Bill 9, instead of a bill that is essentially fluff, you would expect some sign that there is a strategy that has some hope of success, but it's not happening. You would expect that a government would deal with other forestry issues that have been put forward again and again as things that need to be dealt with.


There have been no shortage of reports done for this government. It's their way of delaying any sort of decision. One report goes back to 2008. An Auditor General
[ Page 1050 ]
looked at safety — and he's not the first. There are many coroners' reports that look at forest worker safety. And there were recommendations about how to make the forest safer. Do we see legislation or regulations from this government that actually deal with those issues? Year after year it's ignored, despite the Auditor General being clear that work needed to be done.


The government actually is cited by the Auditor General: "Leadership for making safety a prominent government priority is lacking." That is as clear as an Auditor General can get that there is a failure of leadership. As you look at initiative after initiative with B.C. Liberal forest policy, that's what you see. You see a failure of leadership; a failure of interest; a failure to protect the environment; a failure to protect workers, their economic well-being, their safety. All of those are compromised consistently and repeatedly.


The government's total focus in forest policy is to try to get the majority of the population that is somehow detached from forestry to believe that they are actually doing something. With this feel-good bill, that's part of the attempt. It will accomplish very little. It will not require B.C. wood to be used. It doesn't actually require wood to be used. It says the minister "may" encourage. Like I say, it's a sentiment that we would all share. You can't argue with the sentiment to celebrate the use of wood and to promote it. But as far as it being in any way a substantive forest policy, it is a complete and utter failure.


[1500]

There was a time, if you go back to the Social Credit, where we insisted that these companies were British Columbia companies and that the forests were to produce a public good — where the idea that we would take logs and we would send them offshore to be produced was something that we would try very hard not to do. Because we know that when you leave logs in the forest, you're wasting the opportunity for jobs. When you allow them to go offshore and to be exported as raw logs, you are essentially exporting jobs.


One would expect a strategy to try to make sure that instead of sending logs offshore, we would try to produce things here. We have no value-added strategy. We apparently have no interest at the B.C. Liberal government table to try to make sure that wood is actually used here.


So you have a B.C. Wood First Act where you're encouraging the use of wood, but where there is no requirement that it be B.C. wood. There's no interest in making sure that logs stay in British Columbia and actually produce jobs and produce a product that we can send to other parts of the world and use here. There's no commitment even to the land that we had set aside for forestry.


Here on the Island but also in the Interior…. Certainly Port Alberni was the first example, but you have it around here also. You had agreements that would take areas of private land, the schedule A lands, and you would have those lands in TFLs with large areas of public land. That was supposed to be something that would be in place in perpetuity producing logs, producing jobs.


What this government did, for reasons that are beyond comprehension…. They allowed those private lands to be separated, despite all of the benefits that were given to the companies for decades and decades. They have allowed them to be separated and be sold off essentially as real estate — a huge benefit with the promise, from the minister at that time responsible, of some jobs.


In fact, thousands of jobs, I think, were promised. None of them have been produced. It is a massive giveaway and consistent with a pattern of giveaways to major donors, with no public benefit — absolutely no public benefit. It's not just me who has reached that conclusion.


The Auditor General reached that conclusion. The Auditor General did a report there and was absolutely clear that the giveaway of land to these companies, the breaking up of the TFLs, was not in the public interest.


We consistently see, since 2001, despite a promise to reinvigorate the forest industry, that workers are abandoned. Their safety is compromised. The land that should be producing forests for the future and that all people should have access to and share the benefit from — that's given away.


You look for any sign of a strategy that's going to work. All that we are given is essentially a bill that is going to somehow say something nice about wood. It is such a failure of leadership. That's what you hear again and again as you travel from communities to communities where mills are down and where workers and communities are looking for leadership.


What you see is…. You're asked again and again: "Where's the leadership?" Honestly, if people were to look, if those communities were to look at what is going on in this House and see the reaction to this ongoing crisis in forestry…. This is the plan the government has?


I mean, it would be pretty disappointing. This is what a million dollars gets you. We spent a million dollars with the forestry round table. So far, what do we have from it? We have an expression that wood is great. We don't need a law to realize that wood is a useful product for construction. We shouldn't need a law for us to promote the use of wood in buildings. This building is not new, but they used wood here. They celebrated it. We can see that, and it's beautiful.


[1505]

The school that the minister referred to being built out of wood — well, it didn't have the Wood First Act. It was still built out of wood, and it may even have been built in the 1990s. You know, you don't need a law to realize that wood is a great product to build houses out of. I live in a wood house — quite happy with that. I think most of us do.

[ Page 1051 ]

The other areas where people are looking for leadership and would expect more than this are areas around forest health, around not only the pine beetle but the wide range of forest health issues that are out there. People are looking for leadership in silviculture. They recognize that, despite all of the talk, there really has not been, in any way, a coordinated mountain pine beetle strategy.


In 2001 the Premier declared war on the pine beetle. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Forests surrendered on that file, said that we'd lost. Well, it's not a surprise to anyone. The fact of the matter is that it was always going to be a challenge. It was a challenge that needed to be met. Any idea that we actually attempted to deal with the issue in a meaningful way is simply not accurate. We have not done the work that we need to.


We have a need for leadership to make sure that the areas are replanted, that the industry is given some security. None of those things have happened. There is no mountain pine beetle strategy that has really been proven effective.


We have allowed the total destruction of our value-added sector. We have lost over 60 value-added companies. Most would say that before 2001, certainly, the initiative that was being put forward was to make sure that we made full use of the resource that was there for us. That's no longer happening.


The sentiment in this bill is one that everyone agrees with. The sentiment is all that is there, but it is one that everyone agrees with. Wood is an incredibly important product. It is excellent for construction, not only as a part of the framing and the engineering of a building, but it is a beautiful product. It is one that has a long history.


There was a time when the forest industry would provide good, family-supporting jobs in this province. That time has, for the time being, passed. Will it in the future? Yes, it will.


For that to happen there has to be leadership. There have to be ideas that are real. They have to be ideas that are substantive, more than simply communication strategies. They have to be ideas that are going to involve a public good and involve the public in providing the solution.


We have in our communities tremendous expertise. We have in our communities ideas about how to get more from the land base, how to improve the industry. We have those ideas.


But what we see is a government that is far more interested in doing exactly what their corporate donors want rather than doing what's best for the industry.


Deputy Speaker: Forgive the interruption, Member. Are you the designated speaker?


N. Macdonald: Yes, I am.


Deputy Speaker: Please continue.


Interjection.


N. Macdonald: The minister asks if I would go on for two hours. I'd be happy to do that for the minister. I always enjoy….


Interjections.


N. Macdonald: The Minister of Forests wants to make it clear that it wasn't him that was asking for that. It's the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.


So there's no question that the sentiment is there, the sentiment that we all agree with, but there has to be more. There has to be a strategy that is going to work for our communities and strategies that are going to make sure that there is stability and that we get the industrial jobs back that we need and get people back into the forest, doing the forest health work that's needed.


[1510]

There is so much to be done, but what it takes is an investment and a recognition that these public lands are there for the public good and that if we are going to be serious about making sure that we leave a legacy for future generations, we have to come up with a strategy that will last not only through a communications cycle, but is real and will be something that sets us up for decades to come.


With every challenge — and there's no question there are challenges with markets — there are opportunities. There are opportunities to look at different markets. Some of that is happening. There are opportunities to redefine how we use the land base. There are opportunities to reposition an industry for decades to come. That is not happening.


Those ideas are there. They sit with expertise around the province. There are people who have many ideas about how to move forward. What this government needs to do is to take the expertise that exists within the ministry, to take the expertise that sits in the province, and to put together a strategy that is going to be real and a strategy that is going to work.


I know that there are a number of members of the NDP caucus that want an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is an issue, an area of tremendous importance to all British Columbians, but it is one that is especially felt by those that live in rural communities.


As I say, we have people that have worked in the industry and have spent their life in the industry. The next speaker, unless there is a B.C. Liberal that is going to stand up and speak to this bill, is my co-critic, who has spent 30 years in the industry, who knows the importance of the industry and the need for a strategy that is going to provide the jobs, the economic benefits, and
[ Page 1052 ]
who values tremendously the public lands that surround our communities.


We also have a rural caucus that shares ideas around forest strategy and forest issues.


I'd like to draw to a close. Bill 9, the Wood First Act, is an act which, as I've said many times, is really an expression of sentiment. It doesn't accomplish the things that we need to accomplish in British Columbia. This is not to be confused with a forestry strategy. It is a communication strategy.


The sentiment is appealing. The use of wood, we support. But what we would be looking for is some sign that the B.C. Liberals understand the incredible mistakes that they have made over the past eight years and the damage that they have done to families and communities in abandoning a sector, in abandoning forestry — a sector that I think and many would agree was fundamentally important in the building of this province.


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


B. Routley: I very much enjoy working with Norm on this file. It is indeed a sad thing to realize that the best that this government has to offer, the very best that they can come up with, is a plan to…. It's really window dressing. It's a plan to talk about wood first in British Columbia.


Well, a while ago I think the same government was talking about: "Well, in maybe five storeys we should have a lot of wood." Again, it's motherhood and apple pie.


Coming from the forest industry, of course I want to see wood utilized, and that's a no-brainer. Will this actually result in jobs in communities? Is this going to really put people back to work in mills? The answer is no.


[1515]

This minister knows that. He's been telling the people of British Columbia about mill closures because of the devastating impact of the pine beetle and what's been going on in the economy — the lack of an aggressive plan to do value-added. The best that this government seems to….


Instead of having Wood First, we could actually show that we cared about wood first in British Columbia if we had a plan to make sure that the forest products — some of the best-quality products that we produce — instead of being exported across the line, were actually to be maintained here in British Columbia to create value-added products.


Where does the minister think that those products are going? You know, I had the privilege to sit down in one of these groups that were running around the communities from the Liberal government at one point, and I asked the question: "Well, where…? Those logs aren't just going somewhere and disappearing into thin air. Somebody is running them through either a mill or a value-added plant, and they're creating employment."


Have we examined…? Has anybody taken the time to go over and examine how it is that a company like Interfor, one of the three amigos that this government will remember…? When they capitulated to the corporate agenda and basically gave them everything that they wanted back in 2003, we were promised then that it was going to be a new day and that because of this government's actions there was going to be real employment and real prosperity. After all, they were creating…. They got rid of all the private lands out of tree farm licences. They made private land–like rights in our tree farm licences and basically gave the industry everything they wanted.


At the end of the day, companies like Interfor shut down mills in British Columbia — first one, then another, then another — and when they got money back in the softwood lumber deal, do you think they spent any of that money on investing in British Columbia, as was promised? It was promised by this government, and their representatives were running around, and they were promoting this wonderful plan that was going to come about. All the CEOs were promising they were going to invest in British Columbia.


Did they invest? No. The reality is that at the end of the day they shut mills down, and this government sat on the sidelines. They'd basically given away the toolkit, Madam Speaker.


In the past, when governments had appurtenancy, when they had the ability to tie our wood to our mills and to our communities throughout British Columbia, when there was a true public process, the government of British Columbia would put out to the public, "Here's what we're thinking about doing," and the public had real consultation.


All those processes just got thrown in the garbage. They've been thrown in the shredder in the same ministry of delete whose office I can't find. They're gone somewhere; I have no idea where — all of those good ideas of connecting communities, caring about communities and caring about workers. There was no plan whatsoever put in place by this government to protect the interests of British Columbians and B.C. communities while they were busy unbolting and disconnecting the public connectivity, the public connection to our forest.


You know, I talked to forest workers who said: "Surely this government must have some plan. They must have gotten commitments or real agreements that there was going to be actual investment." When the CEOs went running around to communities, people talked about it in the lunch rooms, and they said: "Well, maybe this is really going to happen. Maybe this government has some kind of plan and knows what they're doing."

[ Page 1053 ]

The results? At the end of the day no plan, no connection, no promises, no agreement. This government has no problem sitting down with the federal government behind closed doors and cutting a deal without the people of British Columbia knowing. They have no problem sitting down with some P3 partner and cutting some deal to give away another asset of British Columbia.


[1520]

They have no problem doing that kind of thing, but where is the interest of this government in taking care of the actual working people throughout British Columbia and taking care of communities throughout British Columbia? Where is the action?


You know, just wonderful fluff and window dressing is what this comes down to. I mean, come on. How many buildings do we really expect are going to be built under the building codes in communities all over British Columbia, and how much money, in the middle of all of these cuts, do we expect this government's going to be spending on building six-storey buildings with wood? It's just more nice words.


By the way, some of the other folks…. If you were from the steel or glass or cement industries…. They're interested in hearing from the government. Is next year their turn? We're going to have glass-first year, and then we're going to have cement-first year after that. Kind of a rotating door, and everybody can be first.


But there's no real plan of action involved here in talking about wood first. It sounds nice to say. We're filling up some time here in the Legislature, spinning our wheels yet again with more jiggery-pokery by this government.


Jiggery-pokery — that's my mother's favourite word again. I get to use it again. I dearly love the opportunity to use my mother's favourite word, jiggery-pokery. I've never seen the likes of it. Almost every day there's a new opportunity to talk about jiggery-pokery here in this place.


What's going on is that this government….


Interjection.


B. Routley: I hear there are lots of cheerleaders over there that are cheering me on. They're excited.


Finally, they've come awake. They've heard some truth being spoken in this place, and they're interested. They want to carry on some discussion about Wood First because they're going to be doing all these wonderful things to take care of the people of British Columbia. Somehow they want us to believe a myth that we're going to have mills open up all over British Columbia because this government has opened up Wood First.


You know what's amazing? This is a true story. I know some brothers that phoned up Western Forest Products, and they wanted to know if they could buy some wood to build some of their own buildings. You know, you can't buy wood. They tell you to go through one of these big wholesale outfits like Home Depot.


You know what's alarming? You go into Home Depot in downtown Duncan in the Cowichan Valley, and there are products from all over the world.


This minister is promoting a wood-first plan, but please note that there is no mention of the word "B.C." There is no mention of the words "B.C. communities." There's no mention about B.C. workers and their families, who are desperately looking for help from this government — just more words, more verbal diarrhea about the kind of thing that they're going to produce, some kind of wonderful plan that's going nowhere. It's a plan that goes nowhere — to talk about a new strategy.


We've had a long list. Back in 2001 we had the new era of sustainable forestry. Where did that lead? More mill closures and shutdowns. Then in 2003 we had the so-called forest revitalization plan. Well, we haven't found anything that needed revitalizing.


[C. Trevena in the chair.]


Maybe the minister saw some of those mills going down, and he was going to somehow go mouth to mouth and give them resuscitation. But you know what? They didn't do that either. At the end of the day, those mills — mill after mill after mill — closed. Community after community abandoned.


I was shocked when I went up to Mackenzie. With my friend there, we met with some of the locals in the largest hotel in Mackenzie. In fact, just down the hall Mr. Bell has an office. There's nobody there, other than some poor lady, probably cleaning cobwebs. At the end of the day, we went into that hotel, and it was empty.


[1525]

Deputy Speaker: Member, one moment.


Hon. P. Bell: We've heard this member a couple of times use other members' names. I'd just ask you to remind him about the appropriate decorum.


Deputy Speaker: Absolutely.


B. Routley: Okay, Madam Speaker. I'm working on remembering "Minister of Forests," and I do need to shine that up a bit. "Brother" is far too kind. I take that back. Brothers and sisters, while we might fight and argue, at the end of the day you can get somewhere. But the bottom line here, I'm learning, is that they have no interest in listening to this side of the House — none whatsoever — even when we put forward some good ideas.

[ Page 1054 ]

For example, let's talk about log exports. This minister says he's interested, so I'm going to give it another Boy Scout try to talk about how we could avert some log exports. This would keep wood first in British Columbia.


I talked to mill managers in my travels who said that one of the problems with log exports is that if they buy 40 percent of their wood from one company and 40 percent of their wood from another company and for that last 20 percent they want to block the export of raw logs, what happens is that when they try to block the export of raw logs, they get a phone call from that log company that's exporting the logs, and they get told: "No, no. If you block that sale, we're going to discontinue providing you with that 40 percent that we did the year before."


There's an example, and this is a real case — the sawmill in Nanaimo where I had the manager sit down with me before it closed. He explained that one of the problems was that they weren't able to get real access to the wood because there wasn't what he referred to as like a double-blind process. And so I'm glad the minister is here for this. The opportunity is there. If we're really serious to look at a double-blind kind of process where we say to the….


If the government had a will to, they could introduce the idea of providing logs on the export market that weren't tagged and marked with a company name, locate them in a place that wasn't directly associated with any company and, just like I saw in Japan, allow anybody to come down, walk those logs and buy a few logs here or there if they want — buy the whole boom if they want, if they want to put a bid on it.


It's a blind process. The buyer and seller don't see each other. There would have to be an intermediary to ensure that, at the end of the day, there can't be any of this…. These aren't my words. One of the mill managers said that it's kind of a blackmail that he felt, being phoned up and told: "No, no. Don't you bid on that."


The same thing with a value-added producer. I had an operation called Fantax in Parksville that was wanting yellow cedar wood from Macmillan Bloedel. For a while they were getting supplied all the yellow cedar they wanted. And then one day the call came through to that poor little mill, and they said: "You're done. No more wood from that company." And they phoned me up and said: "Well, what do we do?" I said, "Well, I can make a few calls," but the answer I got back was: "No, no. We've decided we need all of the wood."


So even though you had an operation providing employment, the reality is that in British Columbia we have corporate concentration so badly as a result of the actions of this government that there is almost unilateral control by a handful of players in our total forest industry in British Columbia — by a handful of major, major companies. It's indeed a sad state of affairs.


Then I want to talk about making wood first for the future of British Columbia. I'm concerned about the forest health in British Columbia, because I've talked to professional foresters. I've talked to people that are out in the field, actually planting trees.


[1530]

You know what they tell me? We’ve got to question the minister about this. There are 14 million hectares or more in some state of forest health problem.


It can be anywhere, as the minister puts it, from some kind of trace health issue to a very serious issue where those hectares are virtually down and out for the count, and they're falling down. All over the province we've got huge volumes of dead and dying wood in those pine forests. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen.


We're going to have a day come where there's more…. The minister knows this is correct. I'm sure that he does, that he wouldn't disagree. Next year there are going to be more lightning strikes, and if they hit in the wrong place, we're going to light up like a candle because we have this dead and dying wood in these pine forests that are getting more decayed by the day.


There's no bioenergy plan. When we were out in the field, I talked to a logging manager who said that he would like to supply…. He said that he could supply a local community business, a small business, with a few truckloads every day, and they could make pellets. I'm only talking about a couple of employees here. This isn't big business, but this is an example.


He said that he was prepared to give it away, and the company had already paid for it, for the billing of it. At the end of the day, he was told that the Ministry of Forests wouldn't allow him to do it. Couldn't even give it away. And those are the kinds….


Why are there roadblocks like that? All these mountains full of wood waste, and there seems to be just bureaucratic bungling and seems to be no approach to come up with resolutions that are going to be meaningful and actually provide serious opportunities for people to get engaged in looking at bioenergy.


There are small projects. We were in Kamloops, and we saw that Nexterra has a plant there that's generating. Instead of natural gas, they're using waste wood to provide energy for the dryer to dry plywood. That's a good thing, but that's kind of a one-off project. I believe there was both federal and provincial money that helped that, kind of an experimental thing. Again, it's good news. The company is reporting that over a three-year period it essentially paid for itself, and in an ongoing way it's providing real energy.


I'm hearing there are little bits and pieces. In fact, I hear that Tofino, of all places, is looking at using waste wood to generate energy. There is a tremendous opportunity for…. When I think about putting people to work, if there were a real serious plan and everybody got in the
[ Page 1055 ]
room and they let their hair down, so to speak…. And I don't mean….


Interjection.


B. Routley: Yeah, I'm not picking on anybody.


But if they let their hair down and they said, "Look, let's figure this out. Let's work together...." If you had these foresters and you had these logging and sawmilling managers, and you had looked at the wood waste issue, and you said: "How can we work together...?" There ought to be a real attempt. I know that they had their round-table thing, and I'm sure there were a few good ideas that came out of there.


Again, the industry is desperate to see action. The forest workers and forest communities that we talked to everywhere we went said the same thing. It was the same thing. What they said was: "Wood might be first in the minds of this government, but for communities and for workers, they feel they're dead last."


They are dead last. You go into the community hall, and they say: "Here we are, sitting in Port Alberni, looking at the trees all the way around." The mayor says: "We got no say, none whatsoever, about what's going on in our community." The workers in the mills say: "We got no say."


They take 20 percent of the land base away. One of the last goofy plans that they come up with was taking 20 percent away from every forest company in the province, and that put out of work thousands of actual family-supporting workers — thousands.


[1535]

We're still waiting for some of that wood to be reallocated. I hear that they dribbled it out in little bits and pieces. It's so uneconomic that…. For example, first nations get a 30,000-cubic-metre block here and 50,000 over there. I'm told by contractors like Hayes, who know what they're talking about, that you've got to have at least 300,000 cubic metres of wood a year to make an economical operation, and at a minimum 150,000 if you're a small stump-to-dump contractor. And they're letting out little bits and pieces.


They're really at the hands and the mercy of some gypsy contractors that may come in from out of town — who knows where — but it's not supplying community-supporting jobs like it used to do. That's the tragedy.


Wood might be first in the minds of this minister. It's all window dressing. It's all fluff. By the way, I remind you again: it's Wood First, but there's nothing about people first — not the people of British Columbia and certainly not any connection to B.C. There's not even a word about: "It's going to be there. This wood is going to get supplied for British Columbians to create jobs for British Columbians that are suffering."


There are value-added opportunities. I went to a value-added forum, I remember, several years ago, and I heard from value-added producers that one of the issues was wood supply — getting a supply of the very wood that they need. Often it's even wood from mills that they've got sitting there.


I got a phone call from a remanufacturer — again, a true story. A remanufacturer in Nanaimo phoned me up and said: "There are millions of feet sitting on the dock, and I just want to be able to buy some of it so I can reman it into a product that I can sell. What I'm getting back from the company is: 'Oh well, even though it's all sitting there going mouldy, we might want to sell it to some customer some day.'" What the truth was, was that they weren't interested in having somebody else buy it that's going to make a buck.


When I phoned the CEO, it was real interesting. This is the kind of thing that real union leaders that care about workers and communities do. I talked to that small company. I heard his concern. I phoned the CEO, and I basically said to him: "Look, you can help us out here. There are people that need employment." He ended up coughing up about three million feet that actually helped put people to work.


It's unfortunate that you have to do those kinds of things and try to work things out. But we have to do that. There has to be more discussion with all the different groups and, certainly, with communities. When you hear what communities are saying to me….


Along with the problems of forest health…. I've talked to a number of foresters that are beating the same drum. I'm not making this stuff up. That's what these professional foresters are telling me. I have no interest in coming up with something that they're not telling me. They're telling me that this government has not done an adequate inventory.


So if wood is first, where is the attempt by this government to do a proper inventory? If wood is first, if wood is so important, we ought to be taking the time to put wood first and actually go out there and make sure we've got an inventory so that we can have good health in our forests.


Isn't that important? How can we make annual allowable cut predictions into the future if we don't know what we have? How can we possibly make accurate predictions? We're hearing about forest health issues, like the weevil that's moving in next door to dead pine and killing second-growth stands.


We asked for the information the other day. It was in estimates, and I'm told it's almost like question period. They don't call it answer period, because there are no answers coming. I found that out. I might be green. It took me awhile to figure that out — that there'd be no answers coming. But I'm starting to figure it out, that it's not answer period at all.


[1540]

When we were looking for answers, there were none forthcoming on the issues of where on earth we are
[ Page 1056 ]
in terms of dealing with the forest health issues in the province of British Columbia.


If wood is truly first, shouldn't we know the exact state of our forest health? Don't we need to know what second-growth stands are dead and dying and need desperate action taken immediately?


I see such a missed opportunity. It just breaks my heart to see community after community desperate to have action done to prevent wildfire and the interface situation that we could end up with. There's a real opportunity to put these laid-off forest workers and their families and have them do something meaningful. Because guess what. We're going to need a qualified workforce in the future.


I actually heard contractors who say they're worried when the markets do turn around, and we know they can turn around quickly. If they turn around, where are they going to get the competent, qualified and trained and skilled workers?


If wood is truly first in the province of British Columbia, we ought to be making sure that if wood is really going to be on our minds, we're going to have the kind of qualified workers now and in the future. We could be doing some things to put them to work by protecting communities, going out there and doing the work that desperately needs to be done on forest health, on fire prevention.


You know, it's the same issue as when I was a safety chairman. How do you measure somebody's death that didn't happen? Well, the answer is that it's pretty hard. You don't know, because you've saved a life because you had a safety plan. You've got an aggressive plan of action to prevent accidents.


Well, you know, we've got forest health problems and forest fires and all these laid-off workers. It's a perfect fit to put people to work. We could have a real plan of action that's going to prevent…. We're talking millions of dollars. Think about the potential of losing a community or homes in the future.


I'm concerned there are liability issues for the province if we don't act now and if we don't act soon — both in the liability of we're not going to have the skilled workforce any longer…. We're going to lose…. We're losing, right now, whole communities. People that I've talked to that worked at the Nanaimo mill have packed up and moved to Alberta, and they're working in the tar sands.


I've talked to a third-generation heavy-duty mechanic. His grandfather and his father were heavy-duty mechanics. You know what he came to the front counter and said to me one day? He said: "I'm out of here. I got a job in construction. I'm not coming back." Another sad story is that he's off working on some project, some road to a ski resort, and that's going to end one day. All of a sudden the funding will be over and that gig will be done. I don't know where he's…. The family has turned into gypsies, and this is happening all over British Columbia.


I just want to finish up by saying that I do see the opportunity for a bright future in British Columbia. I really do, but there are some things that have to be done.


We need to get bright minds together. We need to formulate a plan of action to make use of the opportunities that do exist, whether it's waste wood and biofuels or potential bioenergy, making gasification plants, making new fuels — all of those things have to be aggressively addressed, and one of the things we're hearing in common is that they need wood supply.


J. Rustad: I'm pleased to stand and add a few words to this debate around the Wood First Act. I just want to start by clarifying that the act allows the minister to set best practices. The act allows the minister to be able to promote the utilization of our wood products in construction, particularly in the buildings that we are involved in, in terms of provincial funding.


[1545]

Just in response, though, to what some of the members opposite have just said, particularly the member for Cowichan Valley. He just talked about jiggery-pokery. I have just heard so much that I would have to say that there's a definition in the library that says: "See member for Cowichan Valley."


The last half-hour of pontification that I've just heard….


Interjections.


Deputy Speaker: Order.


J. Rustad: The member opposite just said there is a bright future for forestry. There is tremendous potential for our forest industry in this province, and you know what? I've been here now…. This is going on my fifth year of being in this House. I would love just once to hear one idea from that side of the House to be able to support what we need to do with our forest industry.


The member opposite just talked about the potential for bioenergy and utilizing work for creating power and energy, and do you know what, Madam Speaker?


Interjections.


Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.


J. Rustad: The members from the other side wanted a moratorium on it. We've been trying to promote the opportunity to utilize wood for power, for bioenergy. They just want to throw a complete stop on it. It was in their election platform. Now, maybe they've done a total reverse on their election platform. I don't know. That is possible.

[ Page 1057 ]

But Wood First is something that industry is saying is a great thing. We've heard leaders of the various forest companies say that it's about time now in our province that we are going to put the focus on taking our construction industry on the commercial side and start looking at trying to utilize wood. People like Dave McRae from FPInnovations and Forintek have said that this is a great initiative. It is a great opportunity to start the process of using wood in different ways in this province, to support our forest industry.


Things don't change overnight. It takes time. You need to set the groundwork, and you need to work it through the system. But we can become a showcase for what you can do with wood. There is so much potential that we can do in our province. When you look at some of the facilities that we have done in this province already and the type of wood that's there…. We're going to see in just a few months' time, when the Olympics are on, incredible showcases of what we can do with wood, because we have set a priority for utilizing wood in this province.


The member opposite talks about the pellet industry and the opportunity to create pellets and not having access to fibre. We are doing exactly the opposite of what that member is saying. We are making fibre available. There is incredible growth in the pellet industry just in my communities alone. In Burns Lake there are two pellet plants that are in the works. There's a new pellet plant being built in Vanderhoof. There's an existing pellet plant in Vanderhoof already. There's expansion of a pellet plant in Houston. The opportunities in pellets are phenomenal.


We are enabling that. We are creating volume opportunities. There are six first nations in Burns Lake that have come and approached the province and said: "We would like to partner on this." We're making wood available through that as an opportunity for them to partner in that.


There are many other examples of this all around the province. To sit here… For one of the members opposite to stand and say that there is nothing that's happening in the forest industry and that we are not utilizing our wood and our potential, is totally and completely wrong. If they would only stand up and go and maybe visit some of those facilities, go and see some of those opportunities that are happening in this province, they would understand what we are doing, and they would understand why a bill like this is so important for our forest industry and for the workers in this province for what it will do.


Another innovation around this is the wood innovation centre that will be going into Prince George. This is an opportunity once again to look at wood products differently. What can we do different? How can we promote and utilize our product in a much better way?


The member for Cowichan Valley is right about one thing. We do have a very bright future in the forest industry. Despite the challenges we are facing with the downturn in the world economy, with the pine beetle and other health issues that are facing us in this province today — despite all those things — I know that our forest industry is going to be competitive. I know that our forest industry is going to continue to be the backbone.


[1550]

I can tell you one thing that is going to help make it, and that is because we're on this side of the government, and we believe in the forest industry. That side has yet to come up with any ideas for the forest industry, which is why they're in opposition.


I'm very pleased to have had this opportunity to support this bill. I look forward to it passing, and I look forward to what this will do in the future for our forest industry.


B. Simpson: I believe that every MLA in this House has an obligation to the public to speak with integrity and to speak in a manner that reflects what actually happens. So I would give the member for Nechako Lakes the benefit of the doubt but suggest he goes back and looks at Hansard in a debate that he and I had in a private member's statement about the future of the forest industry.


It's clear. It's where we laid out the plan that we had made public in early 2007. So to suggest that the opposition has not put forward plans and has not done it in this Legislature is, unfortunately, incorrect. I'd suggest that he refresh his memory of that.


The second thing that I think is important is to remind everyone — the public and those who are in this House — that when we first came here in 2005 as a renewed opposition, with the permission of the Leader of the Opposition we approached the former Minister of Forests and said: "Let's depoliticize forestry. Let's take it out of the political domain because it is going to struggle. It is going to go into a deep recession. It is too important to us, to the province and to the people of British Columbia to let slide."


Let's not make it a political football. Let's work cooperatively together through one of the vehicles we have in this Legislature, which is an all-party standing committee properly constituted and given a mandate to go out and look at alternatives for the forest industry. We were rebuffed.


So it is the government sitting on that side that has prevented the opposition from playing a legitimate, constructive, deliberate role in preventing the catastrophe that has occurred to our number one sector in this province under their watch over the last eight years. The blame lies on that side for this not being a constructive debate.

[ Page 1058 ]

With respect to the bill itself, I understand the thinking behind it because I happen to live in a forestry town. I live in a town in the heart of the mountain pine beetle. I live in a town that has depended for generations on what is really the largest concentration of primary and secondary manufacturing, pulp manufacturing, per capita anywhere in the world.


A number of years ago — I was trying to reflect on when it happened, and I can't remember the exact date, but it was certainly in the last 15 years or so — a new RCMP building was built in Quesnel made of concrete and brick — and the furor that caused in a community that is a wood community. We've been the wood capital. We have our own wood-first policies. It created a backlash because it was taxpayer money — it was money paid by the industry; it was money paid by forest workers that came back into our community — and didn't use wood to build the building.


So I understand the thinking behind trying to make sure that we help the number one industry through tax dollars when we're going to engage in capital projects. There's a certain irony, I have to say, though, listening to the debate around this, particularly from the other side. In a time when we just came out of question period, pointing out the government is cutting capital funding to the school district and is regressing its financing on capital projects, we now finally get some kind of wood-first policy. There's a bit of irony in that.


As a principle, Wood First has some merits. Does it have to be legislated? I'm not so sure. In fact, the member for Nechako Lakes pointed out that the Olympics is going to be a place that we showcase wood, and that happened without a piece of legislation. What's the purpose of bringing it forward as a piece of legislation? I would suggest the following.


[1555]

The Premier has used the truck loggers convention for years as a place to go and make significant announcements about what he wants to do with forestry. It's a major economic file. For years he was able to make announcements about the direction he wanted to go on that made sure his political party's major funders were kept happy. That's really what was happening there.


Two years ago, in 2008, the Premier had nothing to offer. As I'll indicate here shortly, the government made a fundamental error in its choice for policy direction in 2003 that has made the current situation worse than it needed to be.


So in 2008 the Premier stands at the truck loggers convention, with all of the hype for his speech, and he announces a round table. Well, you could have heard a pin drop. All they were getting was a round table — a round table that was going to go out and, for at least a year, discuss what possibly could be done to help the industry.


Everybody saw it for what it was: an excuse not to act, an excuse not to take determined steps. Of course, because of how the room is seeded with individuals who support the government — cabinet ministers, etc. — people stood up and still gave it a standing ovation.


Fast-forward to 2009. The round table still hadn't reported out. The Premier has to stand up and say something, and he says two things. "We're going to put wood first." He actually made the group say, "Wood is good; wood is good," to a level that China could hear it and got everybody all jacked up.


He also made a statement that caused us difficulty with our Americans, who are constantly putting us under the microscope. He stood up and announced that he was doing a downward adjustment to stumpage on the coast to 50 percent, giving the American Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports all the ammunition they needed to say: "See, they're making administrative adjustments to stumpage." That's what got us in trouble heading into the election, put us under a microscope. That was really what the Premier announced.


Now, with the wood-first component, everybody in the room kind of went: "What's that all about?" I happened to speak on a panel afterwards, and I gave the truck loggers convention a little bit of advice and suggested that standing ovations for the Premier is kind of a weird positive feedback loop.


If you get nothing, and you still give a standing ovation, it gives the Premier everything he needs to come back and give you nothing year after year. The truck loggers have to actually rethink their relationship with this government and make sure that they're actually only applauding the government for real actions.


So Wood First comes into this House this fall. Will it do anything for the industry? Well, I think the proof in our contention — that it's going to do very little — is in the government's press release. For an economic announcement in that press release, there are no economic benefits that are announced — no mills that will open; no jobs created; no market share numbers.


There is no substance to the press release to suggest that even the current minister or the government believes that this is anything other than rhetoric, anything other than smoke and mirrors for a government that doesn't, quite frankly, know what to do to assist our forest-dependent communities, to address the needs of our workers and families and to get this industry back onto a track that it needs to be on.


As the minister admitted today again, the U.S. housing market is not going to rebound anytime soon, and that's what this government has actually defaulted this industry to. Let me speak to that for a few minutes, because that's really the rub here.


In 2003, when this government had a few years in power, they brought in the Forestry Revitalization Act. Now, that was a substantive piece of legislation. That
[ Page 1059 ]
wasn't fluff. That Forestry Revitalization Act was predicated on one premise and one premise alone, and that was that the future of the industry rested in a few large dimension-lumber mills that were high volume, high efficiency and cost-effective.


It was an effective abandonment of the coast, and you can see that in the fact that after the 2003 revitalization act, the government actually began to convert the most productive forest lands under public control into the private domain. They flipped the schedule A so-called private lands out of public control, and those are now logged for log exports. It was a complete abandonment of the coast.


[1600]

The Interior reform was such that it allowed that industry to collapse down to a few major players who wanted to ride the U.S. housing bubble. That's what it was all designed to do — to give them the concentration they needed to do all of the restructuring that they needed to do, to make sure that they were cost-effective and were efficient, to ride the U.S. housing bubble. They bought the same illogic and irrationality that the mortgage owners down in the United States were buying — that that bubble was going to go on forever.


So from 2003 through to 2006 the forest industry under the Liberal government's control defaulted to a dimension lumber industry only. The value-added industry, as other members have pointed out, completely collapsed.


The land base was concentrated in the hands of the few — on the coast, one company effectively; in the Interior, four companies effectively. They started to eat up all of the wood in larger and larger dimension lumber mills, and they wanted to ride this bubble. But even that model didn't work, because as housing starts were going up, that form of industry started to lose money.


You just go back and look at their shareholder reports, and you time it in conjunction with the housing market collapse. We in British Columbia were losing money on this business model before the sub-prime mortgage collapse — before it, not after it. We lost mills, dozens of mills. We lost tens of thousands of jobs before the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the U.S. housing collapse, not after it.


After it, it only made matters worse, so just adding insult to injury. And of course, as others have pointed out, after it the government didn't know how to respond. They still only put federal money into any response to communities or to workers. They never knew how to respond.


Effectively, I would argue, they can't respond because they've changed the regulation to the benefit of a few large corporations. They can't do anything to reverse that without the major funders of their political party being very angry with them.


I know that anger firsthand, because I had to fight an election in which I was pitted against the major employer in my community and my riding. I stood my ground. I took my chances. We have agreed to disagree on the future of the forest industry, but it's one of the companies that has the corporate concentration. I believe we have a better business model for those folks. It doesn't require them to control the land base.


That's the context we're in, and what we're looking for from the government…. We just came out of estimates debate for forestry, and we canvassed a whole bunch of questions to see if the government actually had more substance to this. So we're on solid ground to say that there's not much more out there.


The bioenergy strategy is a bust. Again, the member from Nechako is dead wrong. We didn't talk about a moratorium on bioenergy or biomass. We talked about: stop selling off our public assets, particularly our public rivers, and start looking at public energy solutions. That's what we were talking about. To misconstrue that again, I believe, simply lacks integrity.


Is this a strategy? That's really the question we as opposition members have to ask ourselves. Does this reflect a strategy? Is there something underlining it? For the public who pays attention to this — and I know there are folks who do — the reason this piece of legislation is two pages is that effectively, it simply enables the minister to establish regulations.


Regulations are easy for the minister to adjust, easy for the government to adjust, but unfortunately, they are not a transparent way of doing laws in the province. It gives all of the authority to the minister, and you find out after the fact what the changes are.


Our preference would be that we would have legislation that clearly outlines what it is that the government is going to do with this wood-first policy. We take it at face value that the wood-first is simply an intention that the minister will establish regulations that somehow drive the use of wood when it comes to taxpayer-funded capital projects. That's all it is.


Is it sufficient? Well, as I said, we don't see any job numbers, any market share numbers, any volume associated with it, where even the government has done any kind of analysis whatsoever as to what the potential impact is on this industry.


[1605]

Will it replace our 85 percent volume dependency on the U.S.? Definitely not. The minister will point out, most likely, in his concluding remarks that he's trying to get China to do that. Fair enough. That's another debate we can have at another time as to what the implications of that are. But really, our market share here — despite the fact of potentially $3 billion — is not a huge market share, so it's not a solution in and of itself.


We also have questions about why it isn't B.C. Wood First. Again, we can canvass that in third reading. That's a very important thing to ask. The minister was asked a question in estimates debate by our Agriculture critic.
[ Page 1060 ]
She asked why we couldn't have a B.C. food–first policy in which, for example, firefighters would be fed food from local producers or locally sourced food as much as possible.


The minister's answer was very interesting, because he said that that would cause us some problems with our trading partners under NAFTA and various other agreements. So in third reading we need to look at the implications of that. Really, if it's not a B.C. wood–first policy, if you're not going to go down that path of making sure it is grade-stamped by the Council of Forest Industries that it is a B.C. wood product, then you could actually dissipate any benefit you get from this, because you're buying wood from China. You're going to get wood from the western states, etc.


Of course, as the minister points out, I need to remember the ILMA and all of the other stamps. But the point remains that if it's not B.C. Wood First, the little bit of gain you get will be a very little bit of gain, and you may actually drive all of the competitors gaining from this.


Secondly, we need to understand what the implications of this are for costs to government building, because that's another part of it. Especially when we're in a recessionary period, if this is going to cost more and you're going to download it — you're going to regulate school districts to do it; you're going to regulate health authorities to do it — then once again you have the government devolving costs to other organizations and absolving themselves of the responsibilities for it.


What we need to understand is that if the government regulates this, there are cost increases. Will they cover that off, or will it be another cost burden to these organizations?


The member for Nechako Lakes talked about the fact that he talked to industry leaders who like this, while some of our members talked to the cement industry this morning, which doesn't. It depends on which industry leaders you're talking to.


One of the questions we've got, of course, is: if you go to Wood First, are you going to replace B.C. jobs, cement-manufacturing jobs, with jobs in China and jobs in the Pacific Northwest? That's a legitimate question on behalf of the cement manufacturers as well.


In third reading we have some questions to ask, but the fundamental question is…. The minister can actually answer this question in his concluding remarks and table the document. We would like to see the analysis. We would like to see the actual documentation of the implications of a wood-first policy for British Columbia. We'd like to see the hard numbers. We'd like to see who did the work. We'd like to see who was spoken to. We would like to see what the consultation was.


That document should be tabled in this House as a briefing note to all of us so that we understand as legislators the implications of this bill. That would be transparent. That would be accountable government. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that.


Unfortunately, what it leaves us with is, again, that it's a rhetorical statement. It's a statement where the Premier comes up, on the back of an envelope, with some catchphrase to try and capture a moment, try and get pressure off his back because he doesn't have anything substantive to deliver.


We've seen that with the year of the senior. We've seen it with the year of the child. We've seen it now with climate change. The Premier has moved on from climate change — on and on and on.


In my new critic portfolio we've seen it in spades with the new relationship, another catchphrase — a catchphrase that, quite frankly, all of the first nations communities I've spoken to have said has proved to be the most insulting catchphrase they've ever had to experience. It is words. It's not actions. If that's what this bill is, then yes, we're not interested in it despite the fact that we support the principle.


[1610]

Again, do we have anything to offer by way of strategy? The answer is, quite frankly, yes. We've been trying to get the government to pay attention. In fact, the government has picked up some of this in their nice documents around a potential plan for the future of the forestry industry, although as we went into estimates debate, it didn't seem like there's a lot to that plan. The government is not making very much forward action on it.


We've said that four things have had to happen, and our preference would be to have the minister champion, with the Premier, the need for a legislative standing committee on forestry. Let's get this debate into committee. Let's work together cooperatively and go out and talk to the public about what the possibilities are for the future — not some self-appointed or government-appointed round table that talks to who they want to talk to, but a true public consultation process that hears all of the voices that we hear, as well, and that the government must hear too.


We've said four things. First and foremost, we need to get back to investing in the land base. The best shovel-ready project, when people talk about a stimulus package, is the public forests of British Columbia that are owned by the people of British Columbia and that need to be managed for current and future generations of British Columbians — not for corporate shareholders, fewer and fewer as they are.


We need an inventory, as the member for Cowichan Valley pointed out. We need an inventory of the land base desperately. We need to know the impacts of pests and disease. We need to know the impacts at all age classes — so the juvenile stands, the plantations. We need to know the rolled-up impacts of fire. How much of the land base, for example, has been sterilized because of such hot fires over the last five years? We need to know that. We need an inventory.

[ Page 1061 ]

From that inventory, we need a five- and a ten-year forest investment strategy, which we then can take to the federal government and ask for a partnership arrangement. We've had them in the past under other administrations. They were called FRDAs or forest resource development agreements. We can do that again.


Think about how many people we could put to work year over year, investing in our land base and ensuring that our public forests are going to be there for generations of British Columbians and will get public benefits.


Right now the amount of waste that's being left on the land base, as we canvassed in estimates debate, is obscene. Ben Parfitt is a reputed researcher, and the government does not dispute his figures. In fact, the minister has admitted that his figures are likely conservative, and let me repeat that. The minister says that his figures are likely conservative.


What Ben Parfitt says is that over the last five years under this administration, we have left enough usable waste — usable enough that the companies have had to pay at least a nominal stumpage on it — to put enough wood on logging trucks from Vancouver to Halifax and almost all the way back again. That's how much has been left on the ground. And for the most part, that's burned.


The minister talks about how cool it is that a school in Prince George was built out of wood — again, before a wood-first policy, they did that — and how many cars that that avoided. Well, again in Mr. Parfitt's report, what he points out is that on an annual basis, because of this government's waste policy on the land base, we release 5 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere — 5 percent.


The western silviculture contractors on a weekly basis release a fire statistics report that points out that in the '09 fire season — again, because this government has not done the preventative work necessary to do, as we canvassed in estimates, and because of the waste impacts that compound it — the car equivalents of the greenhouse gas releases are in the order of magnitude of 18 million car equivalents for a year or two million truck equivalents burning diesel. That's a lot of greenhouse gas escape that could be prevented with good government policy.


We need a forest investment strategy. We need a re-inventorying of our public forests, and we need to roll all that up and make sure we have a five- and a ten-year plan where we are heavily investing in our public forests. It's one of the best stimulus packages that we could do in this province, and it would both assist current generations of forest workers and grow skilled forest workers that we need for the future.


[1615]

In that, we need to revisit old growth, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that. We need to revisit old growth. That is an issue that the government is not addressing and has actually rejected addressing. We need to address it.


Again, if we take the government at face value that they're concerned about climate change, one of the things we need to do in redressing old growth is look at the climate change implications of old-growth forests. Because of the carbon capture in those forests, are they of a different value now standing than they are as turned into lumber?


If the government uses its own language of lumber as a renewable greenhouse gas–friendly resource, then we need to put that lens on old growth and make sure we have an old-growth strategy that reflects that kind of thinking.


The second thing we have to do is reform the tenure system, and we don't play around the edges. This is the dispute I got in with my major employer, and again we've had to agree to disagree. We need to break the stranglehold that the large corporations have gotten, under this government, over the public forests. They are public forests. They belong to the people of British Columbia, not the shareholders of a few companies, and they should benefit the people of British Columbia.


We need to have the capacity to have a true log market in B.C. There's all this debate about log exports. We need to address that issue, but the reality is we don't have a true log market in British Columbia where we have a diverse set of tenures. Tenures are how people get licences or long-term agreements to get access to the public forests. We don't have a diverse number of tenures. We don't have a diverse number of points of entry into creating a true log market.


I've talked to the major licensees during the last two years about our desire to get them off the land base. My preference personally would be to break the link between manufacturing and log harvesting and forest management. Allow the forest managers to manage the forest for forest health and for a wide array of attributes — non-timber products, timber products and fibre products.


That's the best way to drive whole new industries. If you take the single-dimension lumber manufacturer's stranglehold on the land base, you get them off of the land base, and you free up the tenure system. Large first nations tenures, large community tenures — not piddly ones that are 10,000 cubic metres but are hundreds of thousands of cubic metres. Give stability to communities, both first nations and our local governments, through large resource tenures that allow them to plan year over year, have their own stable of logging contractors and silviculture contractors.


Wouldn't that be a phenomenal way to address the current abandonment of rural B.C. by this government — to allow them to begin to control their own destiny through the public forests?

[ Page 1062 ]

Then for the manufacturers…. They are able then to not worry about the implications of climate change on the land base, to not default our forests to only timber values — which is what they have to do for their own shareholders — and to not be worried about all the costs associated with managing the land base. They can then take those costs and put it into manufacturing and marketing.


On top of that, we've said that we need a 21st-century industry, one that has all kinds of biomass opportunities, biochemicals, biopharmaceuticals as well as energy in there — but energy not at the level that this government says it is, because that's a trap.


Then we need to take forestry out of the politics of this House, and we need to establish an independent permanent standing commission on forestry that will manage for the long term — the 100- or 150-year term — on behalf of all British Columbians, irrespective of what party they cut cheques for during elections.


That's the beginnings of a strategy. Again, I would challenge the government side that if they want us to work cooperatively with them, if they want to take the debate out of this House, let's have a standing committee on forestry. Let's give it a mandate. Let's get it out around the province, and let's debate the future of the industry in a non-partisan way with the people of British Columbia because they own the forests.


T. Lake: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Wood First Act. I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Forests and Range for bringing this forward.


[1620]

As a new member and a representative of Kamloops–North Thompson, I can speak to the benefits of the forest industry throughout my constituency and certainly know that many of my constituents are challenged by the state of the forest industry at the moment — thanks mostly, of course, to the decrease in housing starts in the United States.


You know, when we look at this policy, this act in front of us, it's one part of a strategy to diversify the forest industry. It's certainly not the only strategy. It's only part of the strategy, but it certainly puts the government putting their money where their mouth is.


If we believe in a wood-first policy, then let's do what we want to do here and make sure that provincially funded buildings use wood as the primary building product. It only makes sense. That, coupled with other initiatives such as increasing wood construction to six storeys in the B.C. building code, certainly is going to demonstrate to the rest of Canada and in fact to the rest of the world that wood is an excellent building product.


Again, another part of the strategy is looking to China not only to increase our market share initially, to diversify away from one major market in the United States, but also, it's just not as easy as selling wood. We have to show the people in China how wood is used, how it can be used successfully.


In fact, the program to design and build roof trusses…. I believe that over 6,000 roofs in China now have successfully been replaced with B.C. wood, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. We know that China has surpassed Japan in terms of volume of B.C. wood imports, and that will be the future. A big part of the future for B.C. forestry is in China, and I want to congratulate the minister for that initiative.


Also, another initiative to support the industry, particularly in my riding, in Kamloops and the Kamloops region is the policy on power production. In Kamloops–South Thompson — but many of the workers live in my riding of Kamloops–North Thompson — Domtar has produced a cogeneration facility that sells power into the grid and makes it economically viable to run that plant at a time when pulp prices were severely depressed. Four hundred people and their families depend on those high-paying jobs at Domtar, and they are working today because they are capable of diversifying their revenue sources through this independent power production.


It's not only the people who work at Domtar who benefit from this policy, but three beehive burners throughout the Interior have been closed down because all of that wood is now burned in the Domtar facility creating clean, green energy.


It goes further than that. We talk about small mills in Barriere. We have a cedar mill. That cedar mill wouldn't be running today if it didn't have the opportunity to send the waste product to Kamloops to be part of that cogeneration facility.


There are many ways in which we can help the forest industry. Diversifying the market is certainly one of them, and this legislation speaks to that. But the single biggest thing we can do for the forest industry, we know, is the introduction of the harmonized sales tax which will produce a $150 million benefit to the forest industry.


When the member for Cariboo North talks about not doing anything for the forest industry…. This government has taken very strong steps to help not just the forest industry but all business in British Columbia, because in fact those businesses create jobs throughout the province, enabling us to increase funding for health care and for education.


I'm sure many of us were very proud last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities when we were at an event hosted by the Premier in a beautiful facility, the Vancouver Convention Centre. The use of B.C. wood throughout that structure is eye-opening. I don't think there was one person who attended, of those 600 or so, that wasn't extremely impressed with the quality of the wood product there — and I might say,
[ Page 1063 ]
too, the quality of the glass product that was made right in Kamloops.


I want to congratulate the minister for this part of putting wood first. This is part of a strategy to diversify and promote the forest industry — something that this government believes in and will continue to do so into the future.


Interjection.


Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. You'll have the opportunity to speak later.


[1625]

Interjections.


Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. You'll have the opportunity…. All members have the opportunity to speak on this bill if they wish to.


D. Donaldson: I have a different perspective than my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. However, I do agree with the intent of this act, but it's woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing the forestry issues in my area in the northwest. What I'd like to do is talk about a few of those issues in relation to the act.


Really, what this act is, is it just touches on the tip of the iceberg. The real meat of the matter is underneath, and this act does nothing to address the real meat of the matter. In order to have a wood-first…. It requires growing the fibre. This government has demonstrated a lack of interest in silviculture in my area, hon. Speaker, and I'll give you an example.


Anspayaxw Development Ltd. is a Gitxsan-owned company that deals in silviculture. They've written to me lately to describe a lack of understanding of the silviculture window by this government, and that leads to a problem when it comes to doing silviculture work up in the forests in my area. So they talk about that. It's a payment process problem. There are waits and delays that are an impediment to silviculture activities in my constituency.


Again, going back to the Wood First Act, you have to be able to address these kinds of issues in silviculture if you're going to have wood to grow to use in a Wood First Act. So that's one item.


There's also an issue they bring to my attention — the B.C. Timber Sales blocks that are deactivated, creating a safety hazard to people who are working in silviculture in my area because there's a lack of ATV access for instances where workers may get injured, and that's a safety issue.


Earlier the member for Nechako Lakes talked about ideas. Well, there are two ideas he can take to the bank, and if this government actually cares about forestry, there are two ideas that they can act on. I look forward to that, and I look forward to the member for Nechako Lakes supporting those kinds of ideas.


A second area that relates to the Wood First Act is in harvesting. You can't have wood first unless you harvest the wood, and unused and underutilized tenure is an issue in my area. Gitxsan Forest Enterprises Ltd. has applied to this government and had extensive discussions with this government about the need that they have to increase their tenure. This is tenure that isn't being used right now.


I understand that the Minister of Forests is aware of this issue, but what he needs to do is act on this issue and improve the prospect of jobs in my constituency, where there is a 90 percent unemployment rate, by providing the additional tenure to Gitxsan Forest Enterprises that they request. That way, we would be able to then have more wood to harvest to use in products around the province. They also have some efforts to acquire a local mill that's no longer in use, and they need the support of this minister to do that as well.


It's also about the people who harvest the wood, hon. Speaker. Let me give you an example of the priorities of this government when it comes to supporting the people who harvest this wood.


I have a constituent who contacted me recently, Bill Blackwater, a first nations constituent, a Gitxsan who is on unemployment insurance right now — EI. He was working and contributing by harvesting timber. He brought it to a mill that is no longer in operation. It's gone bankrupt. The mill was supposed to pay the stumpage on that as part of their contract.


[1630]

Well, lo and behold, Mr. Blackwater contacted my office because he has a freeze on his bank account. He owes $750 in outstanding stumpage because the company that went bankrupt didn't pay it. He's trying to harvest the wood that will make this Wood First Act usable. He's trying to do that, but he can't do that because this government is going after the little guy. It's going after him.


Meanwhile there are companies around the province that owe millions in taxes to forest-dependent towns, that are refusing to pay — in places like Mackenzie, Cranbrook and communities on Vancouver Island. So I'm glad the member for Kamloops–North Thompson brought up the UBCM last week, because one of the major issues that the new president of the UBCM points out is the industrial taxation issue for communities, especially for forest-dependent communities and especially for those who are owed millions by forest companies.


Instead of this government assisting the communities in getting those millions, which the UBCM resolution called for, and instead of this government setting that as a priority, they go after the little guy in my riding for $750 in outstanding stumpage. That's an example of
[ Page 1064 ]
the priorities, and that's an example of where this government is heading in the harvesting side of the forest industry.


The third area that I'd like to discuss under the Wood First Act here is the need to recognize the use of wood in applications other than dimensional lumber. I have an initiative in my area that has been put forward by the Suskwa Chiefs. It's a hereditary organization. It's a community group, and it's a bioenergy project.


In our area in Stikine we have a high percentage of the wood now considered pulpwood. That's because the companies that left an unhappy legacy in our area creamed the good wood and took the sawlogs first. Now we're left with the pulpwood.


This initiative by the Suskwa Chiefs is a bioenergy project where they would produce energy from the pulpwood and from wood residue in the forest. It's a good project, and they submitted a bid under the clean energy initiative under B.C. Hydro. They waited months for a response to a letter they wrote to the minister around answers to why they weren't successful in that bid.


Interestingly enough, only four bids were successful. The rationale involved the fact that three of them were already…. The infrastructure was established already, but the fourth, interestingly enough, involved the creation of new infrastructure under one of these bioenergy projects. It so happened that it fell in Prince George — exact same type of project that the Suskwa Chiefs were trying to initiate in the northwest, but the one that was chosen fell in Prince George, which happens to be in ridings that are occupied by this government at the moment.


I don't know if that's a coincidence. I won't cast any aspersions there, but it's an observation anyway and certainly was an observation that the Suskwa Chiefs made me aware of when they were disappointed in not getting an answer for months around why their bid was rejected and what actually were the criteria used to reject their bid.


What we need is a better policy around using wood in other ways for the northwest especially. There are some more good ideas for the member for Nechako Lakes to take to the bank and support when we bring them up, and help us implement them and us help this government implement those ideas, especially in the northwest, where, as I said, we are facing 90 percent unemployment in some of our communities.


The final area that I want to address in this debate about the Wood First Act: doing good management of our forests requires knowing what we have. If you don't know what you have, it's extremely difficult to manage, and then it makes it impossible to plan for the future.


[1635]

As my colleague pointed out earlier, we need an inventory of the forest land base, but not just an inventory of the forest land base but of all the assets on the land base. I urge this government and the Minister of Forests to use the opportunity of federal infrastructure dollars and add the support of provincial infrastructure dollars in a way that is thinking a bit outside the box.


That's what we have to do in B.C. around the forest industry. We have to think outside the box a little bit. Instead of thinking about infrastructure simply being physical structures, think about infrastructure being the human component, as well, and the human infrastructure.


What I'm suggesting is a program where we could create teams of people in areas such as mine, where there are many people who are unemployed who enjoy working on the land base, to go out and collect the ecological data on the ground that we need to make the decisions for the future and the decisions that are going to be the basis of future plans. Without the data collected, it's impossible to make good plans and good decisions.


What we're facing right now is the infrastructure dollars are being used in narrowly defined ways. I understand that those are there to help create jobs. But think about the jobs that could be created on the land base and about the human element and also collecting the ecological data so that when the industry does turn around, when the markets turn around not only in forestry but in commodity prices on mining, for instance, we actually have the information — the ecological data, the inventory data — we need to make the decisions.


We hear this from companies, not just forest companies but mining companies up in my area, which say: "Why don't you go out and collect that data now so that when forestry prices or commodity prices turn around, we'll actually be ready to make decisions about where development should occur on the land base?"


That's another innovative idea that I'm providing for the minister to look at and, hopefully, implement. It would mean a lot in the area that I represent as far as getting people to work on the land base.


Delays are unacceptable. That would mean people getting out on the land right now. It doesn't matter if it's in the summer or the winter. We need to collect data in the winter as well.


I used to do that myself. I worked for a forestry consulting firm on beetle probing, back when the beetle problem was thought to be manageable, and worked in the wintertime and was able to snowshoe through the forest. It was quite an enjoyable job. The beetle aspect wasn't that enjoyable, but the actual work was enjoyable.


There are some ideas. Again, my colleague to the east, from Nechako Lakes, who sits on the government side can look at those ideas, because he's telling us we don't have ideas. Well, there are some ideas for him to look at and support.


In conclusion, once again, I agree with the intention of the act, but it has no teeth. It's window dressing. It doesn't address the issues that I've pointed out here about silviculture, about harvesting, about the priorities
[ Page 1065 ]
of this government, about doing an inventory on the land base, about recognizing that there are other uses that wood can be put to. It doesn't address any of that.


If this act is the response by this government to the utter collapse of the forest industry in my area, in Stikine, then it really shows a lack of understanding by the Minister of Forests and by this government, and it doesn't bode well for the future for the people of Stikine and the residents I represent.


I hope to see more from this government and more that will mean actual jobs on the land in my area.


[1640]

M. Sather: I rise to speak to Bill 9, the Wood First Act. It's a rather surprising piece of legislation. I heard, quite a while ago, the government talking about a wood-first policy and floating that one out there.


Well, of course all British Columbians support the idea of promoting our forest industry, so that's a no-brainer. Wood First is a good…. Somebody called it a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue, and indeed, we will be supporting the bill, as light as it is. That goes to the issue of this rather Kafkaesque exercise that the Premier and this government have been going through recently with regard to the Wood First Act.


So we come up with a bill that has five sections. The first one has got a couple definitions in there. It's got a little bit on the purpose, a wee piece on best practices, a little bit of power to make regulations and then commencement. There's almost nothing in this act of any substance.


Of course, members of this opposition have a duty to stand up and to criticize a bill. Whereas the principle of it is good, the actuality of it makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't do anything.


It does absolutely nothing for the catastrophe that we have in the forest industry in British Columbia, for the devastation that families have felt — families that are moving out of this province, moving from one job to another to try to survive as a result of the devastation of the forest industry that this government has brought upon the people of British Columbia. It does nothing for that whatsoever. So of course, we're going to critique and criticize this bill.


The Premier and the minister say that they want to facilitate a culture of wood. Well, it was taken as a given by British Columbians for decades that forestry was the leading industry in this province. Of course we have a culture of wood. But again, it's simply a pale, pale response by a government that has completely run out of ideas. Worse than having run out of ideas, it's a cover-up. It's a poor attempt to try to deflect from their complete mismanagement of the forest industry and of the file.


In 2008 the Premier launched what he called a seismic shift in forestry. Well, may the good Lord help us, because we don't need any more seismic shifts in forestry of the kind this government has brought about. That's the last thing we want to hear.


Forest workers — those that are left, those that are clinging to their jobs, those that are hoping against hope that they might get hired again, those that are hoping that all the mills that this government has shut down may some day open, those of them who are trying to rescue those mills that the corporations have abandoned themselves — are hoping against hope. But they're not holding their breath, and they're worried about another seismic shift in forestry of the kind that this government brought in, has brought upon them and upon the heads of their families.


We think back to 2001. Then it was the new era of sustainable forestry. What a sad joke that is. An era of sustainable forestry is exactly what this government has failed miserably to do over their whole tenure. Now the cover-up is a Wood First Act — not a good act. It's not a good act by the Premier, not a good act by the Forests Minister, and it certainly doesn't cover their tracks.


[1645]

There are other industries, of course, in this province that have some concerns about their future. One of my colleagues mentioned the concrete industry, which very graciously hosted our caucus this morning for breakfast, and I'm sure they've talked to the minister's side. You know, they're feeling a little left out.


They have an industry that is contributing significantly to building buildings in this province, yet they hear the Premier going around talking about wood. They're starting to feel like real second-class citizens. It's fine to have a wood-first policy, but what about support for them?


What they're seeing is all these exports. They're seeing concrete that's been coming in from the U.S. and from other places. By the way, it comes in carbon tax–free. It comes in carbon tax–free, but they have to pay the carbon tax. That isn't fair to them, and that's a good point that they make.


This bill is supposed to apply to provincially funded buildings as long as they fit within the building code. But let's face reality. When it comes down to it, highrises are going to be built with concrete. Sure, we're going to have houses that are going to continue to be built with wood as long as we still have a forest industry to put out some wood in this province, and that's becoming more of a concern.


I know that in my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows my workers have been devastated by what's happened to them. We have a fair bit of wood construction in Maple Ridge, or we did have. Now what we have is the most unemployed people in the Lower Mainland, the highest applications for EI, the greatest number of people at the food bank that we've ever seen — 5,000 and counting. And those are only the people that have a fixed address.


So a wood-first policy rings pretty hollow for my constituents. They don't feel the effect is positive for them.

[ Page 1066 ]

Back in 2003 there was the forest revitalization plan. There've been all kinds of words. There's been plan after plan after plan, and nothing has happened except disaster, devastation, for this industry.


I don't know whether the public affairs bureau is working on behalf of the Premier anymore or not. I don't know why — if it's them or if it's Jessica McDonald, who left…. Whoever has been whispering in the Premier's ear to come out with this policy…. Maybe it was Jessica. Maybe that's why she's gone. Because it's not a good idea to come out with a thinly veiled disguise to try to hide your failings.


They'd have been better off if they didn't bring it up at all and hoped against hope that the people of British Columbia forget and forgive. As somebody said recently, there is a short memory in politics. Hopefully, the government can only hope that the mess that they've made of the economy, the mess that they've made of the forest industry will be forgotten, but I don't think so.


One of the members on the other side mentioned the HST in his response to this bill. Well, there's a job killer for you. There's a tax shift of a magnitude that the average British Columbian knows is going to hurt them further.


We've got — or we did have at one time — a pretty vibrant forest industry in my community. They're not going to be helped by the HST, and they're not going to be helped by a wood-first policy, because what they need are jobs. They need to know that their mills are still going to be there tomorrow. There are no promises of that from this government. One can well understand why there wouldn't be any promises, because who can believe them anymore? They never deliver.


In the last week 2,000 jobs in British Columbia have been impacted by mill closures, and the devastation just goes on and on and on. What happens to those workers?


This government, back in the '90s…. They like to talk about the '90s. They would talk about: "Oh, the workers are fleeing British Columbia." Well, that's exactly what's happening now. Workers are fleeing British Columbia, sometimes aided and abetted by the former Forests Minister, who went up to Mackenzie and said: "Hey, I can help you get out of town. I can help you get out of the province. Go over there. Get the work in the tar sands of Alberta." And that's what they've been doing.


[1650]

They've been going anywhere they possibly can to make a living because of this government's policies, and the Wood First Act, sadly, does absolutely nothing to help them — absolutely nothing.


We had the coastal action plan — totally meaningless. Nothing's been done for the coast. The member from Cowichan talked about the difficulty, too, of trying to prevent the loss of our jobs through the export of logs. The government says: "Well, you can challenge that, and everything's copacetic." It isn't. You try to challenge those exports of logs, and you find yourself without any supply. That's a well-known fact, part of the job-killing strategies of this B.C. Liberal government that are a shame, an absolute shame.


To make matters worse — to make matters far worse — the workers that have been hurt by this government have not been helped by this government. There's no money for them when they're displaced. You know, there has been some federal government money that the province tried to kind of say was theirs, but they don't put any money into it.


They don't — they don't seem to — worry about those displaced workers. Tens of thousands of jobs lost in the last few years, 40 mills closed, others barely hanging on, and where's the caring and concern for those workers? It's not coming from this government.


You're an unemployed forest worker hoping against hope that you might work again. You go out and get a job. Maybe you have to get a job at the local convenience store or wherever. You're getting minimum wage. What does this government say to you? It says: "Wow, isn't that a great thing that we have the lowest minimum wage in Canada?"


That's a real accomplishment that this government brags about. They brag about it, showing their disdain for working people, showing their disdain for families in this province. Their uncaring attitude has gotten them into the mess that they're now in, and no little act like this, no two-page apology is going to make up for the mess that this government has created. Not on your life.


There used to be a time when jobs in the forest industry…. There was a responsibility on the part of forestry companies to provide jobs in this province. There was a policy that this government quickly jettisoned when they were elected, the appurtenancy policy, which said: "You know what? If you're producing from the land, from the public lands, then you have a responsibility to provide for the people in those communities."


This government came in and said: "Oh, those people. They don't know what they're talking about. They have no idea about how the market works. We'll come in, and we'll run the show right." If what they've done is running the show right, I'd hate to see what's going to happen in the next four years when they're still in power. It's a real issue, a real concern.


What did they do? They gutted the Forest Practices Code. That's what they did. They have given corporations in this province a free rein to pillage the province and the forest industry, to take what they want and give as little back as they can. That little back is what this government allows them to do: to give very little back.


One of the ways they did that. There was a Forest Practices Code, which had some teeth in it. This government came in with a brilliant idea, and they still love it, you know.

[ Page 1067 ]

They said: "We'll get rid of those regulations. We'll get rid of them. Oh, it's all red tape — the Forest Practices Code, looking after the environment, protecting riparian areas. All that stuff is just red tape. We'll get rid of that. We'll get those pesky forestry workers who go out there and make sure — try to do their best — that the land base isn't ruined. We'll get rid of them to make sure that you can make as much money, do as much damage, and nobody's watching at all."


[1655]

Those are the kinds of forest practices that this government has had and continues to have. It's no wonder that we've been left in the mess that we're in, no wonder at all.


What we've seen, too, is that through these last nine years the forest industry has become more and more de-unionized, which I'm sure the government takes as another feather in its cap. But what's happening on the ground with that? You get people who used to have some security, that used to have a pension, used to have some protection out there working now as contractors. They're having to work without….


They're being pushed to the limit. And what we're seeing are a lot of deaths in the forest industry. We're seeing people being hurt. We're seeing people being unable to continue their lives. We're seeing workers that have died as a result of this government's forest practices.


There've been people of note who have told the government about this — the forest safety ombudsman, the Auditor General. They've all said that the safety of workers is being ignored by this government, but nothing happens. Nothing happens.


What is happening that we see? Log exports doubled under this government. Now, there was supposed to be a tax back in 2008 on log exports — not happening. But they don't care, because it's part of their agenda. They only care about the forest corporations. Obviously, they get payback from that.


The corporations will support them. They did that at length throughout the last election. They've done that with generous donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. They tried to frighten people, their own workers, into getting out there and voting against our side, voting for their side. A lot of intimidation went on.


What have they done except pave the way for the loss of jobs in British Columbia? As we see those logs disappear, as we see them head over the border, as we see the mills…. Interfor mills — they're closing mills in British Columbia and opening them up down south.


[H. Bloy in the chair.]


That's a great forest policy, a great legacy for this government. It's coming to be, very quickly.


The beetle kill. There's another one. This spring the minister said that the shelf life of beetle-kill wood would mean that mills would be able to keep running until the mid-2020s. Now he's saying that we're going to run out of wood quickly because of decisions that have been made about things like species at risk.


This is the same minister who, not long ago, was signing an agreement that was supposed to protect species at risk like the mountain caribou. Now he's saying that these very same agreements are part of the problem that is going to cause us to run out of the wood, which a short time ago we had plenty of — apparently until 2020.


In actual fact, though, I don't think those agreements are going to have a great effect — the minister will be glad about that now, I guess, about the supply of wood — because most of the land that does have mountain caribou habitat on it is way up there in the high country, and the stuff down below is going to continue to be harvested at the same rate.


[1700]

The former minister said that the pine beetle kill…. He said: "I don't think it's that bad." So we've gone from, not long ago, the Forests Minister saying, "I don't think it's that bad," to now they're saying: "We're going to run out of wood any day."


So it's a government in complete chaos and disarray on many files. Certainly when it comes to the forest industry, they've got that one down in spades as far as being in disarray.


Now we've got Bill 9, the Wood First Act. The Premier has been running around the province for some time now spreading his gimmicky message. Everybody is to bow down. "Wood is good. Wood is good." That is hardly going to solve the problem.


It's kind of a messianic thing, I guess, but when the messiah has lost his mojo, I don't think any of this stuff is going to work. The members opposite ought to be a little bit worried about the turn of events. They ought to be a little bit concerned, I would think, about the behaviour of their leader.


He has other gimmicks. Recently at the UBCM you could put your name in to get a trip to bring back the torch, the Olympic torch. But you had to be there during his speech to collect.


It's a sad commentary that the administration of this province has fallen to this depth. The government is in disarray. They have no policies that are helpful to British Columbians. The Wood First Act is a case in point. Clearly, they're a government completely without ideas, a government that has lost its way.


Look at the softwood lumber agreement. The government is proud of that. They think that's a good deal. So $5 billion was owed in duties, collected against Canadian companies by the U.S. companies. They got $4 billion back, but the next day the court of arbitration ruled in favour of the Canadian companies and said they could have had all $5 billion back.


But we must never forget, notwithstanding all their failures, that this government is great managers of the
[ Page 1068 ]
economy. They understand how this all works. You know, that's why we had a $2.8 billion deficit — the update deficit 2.0.


It's a bill that on the face of it has some value, but in fact it's simply a cover-up for a government that's failed the people, failed them time after time.


You know, one of the members opposite is asking for ideas. How about protecting forest workers? How about protecting those lost jobs? How about keeping those logs in British Columbia? Those are a few ideas that they could take.


C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to be able to speak to this bill, the Wood First Act. One of my colleagues, the member for Cariboo North, talked about building the RCMP station in his community, and it was built out of wood. I had an example in my own community, Campbell River.


We had a meeting about forestry issues in the town. We were all sitting in the community centre. We had people from across the forest industry there, workers and people who ran woodlots and people from the industry, to talk about how we could work on forestry issues in the community.


One of the people participating in the meeting just looked around at the community centre and said:"One of the problems is that this building is built out of whatever it's built out of, but it certainly isn't wood."


Campbell River has prided itself for many years as being the heart of the coastal forest industry. It still prides itself on being the heart of the coastal forest industry, but many of the public buildings and other buildings are not built out of wood. They're built out of concrete, out of metal, out of other building materials, but not wood.


[1705]

So I would applaud the intent of this bill. I think the intent of this bill is excellent. We really should be using our natural resources in a much better way, being able to bring them into our communities and make sure that our public buildings and other buildings…. Homes already are being built out of wood in many cases, but other buildings — much greater use of wood.


It is also, I would say, the ideal time to be introducing such a bill, because we all know of the downturn in the forest industry and how desperate people are for work. Again I talk about Campbell River. We have the Catalyst pulp mill that has been closed since February. The TimberWest mill is not only closed, but it's been torn down. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment.


People are wanting to work. Loggers are wanting to work. We've had people who have been working a very, very short term in the bush — so little time that many of them can't get EI this year, and they're really getting very desperate.


Again, it would be an ideal time to be doing a bill such as this. But I think that this is really a framework. I'd say framework rather than scaffold, because frameworks imply that we're using wood and not using metal. I think it's a framework that needs a huge amount of fleshing out before we can go forward with it.


Other members have described it as fluff and as window dressing. I would hope that this is a bill that has greater intention than that and really will be a framework for much more thoughtful use of the product and of the industry.


One of the things that I think we really need to look at — again, coming from a community that is forest-dependent and very much the centre of the coastal forest industry — is that we are talking not just wood first. We're talking about B.C. wood first and how we can use our forests to the best extent and how we can use our forests into value-added.


What we're talking about here is the extension of value-added. It's the idea of using wood as the material for building wherever possible. So how we can both use the resource that we have in our communities…? As I say, from Campbell River throughout the north Island, it is a massive resource. It's how we can use that resource and how we can use it not just using our wood, our B.C. wood, but how we are then manufacturing our B.C. wood in our communities.


It's to make those links to have wood that is harvested in our communities and used in our communities. In that sense I think it would be a very strong act and that we could then have B.C. wood harvested and manufactured in our communities, employing the workers who desperately want the work and making sure that all our communities have a future. If this is the framework and this is the intention of this act, it is, as I said at the beginning, one to be applauded.


But the reality, as I mentioned just briefly, in the North Island is that we have mills that have closed. TimberWest mill in Campbell River is not just closed but dismantled. The Catalyst mill is obviously not going to be working on the building trade, but it's been an active mill, and we've been talking about other uses of mills. It's been closed since February.


What we have in North Island…. I've got to say it's very sad. We've got the active mill at Port Alice. That's still going strong, luckily. I guess all that's left, really, are shake and shingle mills. They are, as the minister knows — I've written to him a couple of times about certain mills — in a shaky position themselves.


We really have to do this in a very concerted way. How we are going to make a policy such as this, if there is a good, strong intention, is how we are going to make it work — that is, if there is the strong intent, that it isn't just what we see here, that there is a greater plan and a greater sense of what can be done for our industry and our communities.


That's really what we need. We need a good, strong direction. We need as much as we can get to make our
[ Page 1069 ]
industry work again. If this is one part of it, that's all well and good, but we do need a lot more than this.


The other area that we've really got to look at — and I don't think this addresses that, either — is what is left in the bush. I've got to say again, going out into the bush, that it's an extraordinary amount.


We've heard the examples from other colleagues on this side of the House talking about logging trucks from here to Halifax and part of the way back, of the wood left. However much it is, it is a wasted product. It's a wasted resource.


If we can actually look at a way of working together and bringing that wood out of the bush and using it for value-added, using it…. Whether it's for building materials and other value-added, we'll again be putting people back to work, which I think everybody in this House wants to see. Everybody in this House wants to see that people are working, that communities are thriving, that we are using our resources in the best way possible.


[1710]

I would hope that in looking at how we are dealing with wood as the first and the primary product, we can actually also be looking at the waste wood and what is left in the bush. As I say, I think we have to look at this in a strategic way and make sure that this is B.C. wood, that it's B.C. workers, that we are keeping it in our communities and that we aren't just leaving wood in the bush, but we also are using the wood not just in our communities but in our province so it's not being shipped out. We have lots of rhetoric back and forth about what's happening to log exports and what's not happening to log exports. I know what's happening in my communities in North Island. Any logs that are being produced — most of them are not being…. Well, there is nowhere to manufacture them, nowhere to mill them in the North Island. They are being shipped out, at least out of my community.


Again, it's to keep the wood, if we are serious about a Wood First Act and serious about revitalizing the forest industry through whatever means we can — through using wood as a primary building source, through getting people back to work, getting people to work in the bush and getting people manufacturing…. This is all well and good, but it would be really important to look at this in its entirety and to work on this beyond its framework to give people the confidence that this isn't just a symbol. This isn't just part of a smokescreen or something that becomes a chant in a conference or whatever it is. There is something of substance here, and people don't want symbols. They don't need any more gestures. They need something substantial that will get people back to work in all our communities.


We have a lot of forest-dependent communities in B.C. I represent one, proud to represent one. I hope that a bill like this, if treated with the intent that it should have behind it, will get people back to work in my communities across the North Island in the harvesting of the timber as well as in the manufacturing of it.


S. Fraser: I rise today in this place to speak to Bill 9. We've been waiting an awful long time in the province of British Columbia for some solutions, some policy, some plan for the forest industry and for protecting forest jobs and for protecting the forests in British Columbia for our children and for future jobs and for the environment.


We've been waiting long and hard for strong policy to come forward from this government because under this government…. The Liberals came in and basically gutted all the protections that were there before. They deregulated. They union-busted, and they have allowed a massive amount of logs to leave this province — and along with that, the jobs.


That legacy has come to an extreme point at this time in British Columbia. Over 40 mills closed under this government, tens of thousands of jobs lost in the forest industry under this government — never before seen this kind of devastation to an industry that was the backbone and should be the backbone of this province.


I represent the Alberni Valley, and communities like Port Alberni — forest communities — built the economy of this province. The job loss there, long before any economic downturn, has been highlighted by a statement made by the previous Minister of Finance, who admitted publicly that when it comes to forestry and forest policy, this government has been spectators while this devastation has happened.


We've been waiting a long, long time for a comprehensive plan, a policy to actually address protecting jobs and workers and the industry in this province. Here we are today with Bill 9 detailed…. I guess it's not detailed. It's called the Wood First Act. It's a page and a half. Gee.


[1715]

I mean, the damage done under forest revitalization by this government, the tens of thousands of jobs lost, the massive export of our public resources and the loss of over 40 mills in this province, the devastation to the forest base and the riparian zones and the complete callous disregard for the environment and for the sustainability and renewability of a resource that should be and must be protected for future generations, for the jobs, for the environment, for the carbon footprint, for all those reasons….


This government has destroyed…. If they took a concerted plan to destroy the forest industry and ruin the job opportunities for the people of British Columbia, these guys couldn't have done a better job. This is the solution. It's not the Wood First Act. It's the would've, could've act, I would suggest. It's a bad act by a bunch of bad actors.


I just want to touch on a few things. You could read right through this in about two minutes, but let me just
[ Page 1070 ]
get right to the core of this. It says here…. This is the gist of this bill:


"In order to promote the use of wood in provincially funded buildings, the minister may do the following…." May do the following. The minister may "recommend best practices for the use of wood in provincially funded buildings in a manner consistent with the British Columbia Building Code" — may. The minister may "advise on the form and content of agreements and other arrangements for the design or construction of provincially funded buildings" — may. The minister may "carry out prescribed responsibilities." The minister may carry out prescribed responsibilities.


That is the meat of this flimsy bill that we've been waiting eight years for under this government. You could easily replace that term with, "In order to promote the use of wood in provincially funded buildings, the minister may not do the following," and I could go through those three items again. It would be just as accurate.


The fact is that the "will" part is this government saying: "You will export every stick. We will take 500 square miles out of the publicly controlled public tree farm licences, and we will give it to those companies that have given us money as the B.C. Liberal Party. We will ensure that we rewrite the act so they can export every stick of that wood, all at the expense of forest communities, the workers in those communities that built the economy of this province."


When those companies that gave this government — this party, the B.C. Liberal Party — the money to deregulate and allow them to export every stick, there was no "may" about it. They will, they would, and they have exported everything they could that this government let them do. They exported the jobs and the livelihoods of the people of the Alberni Valley and every forest community in this province, and this government should be ashamed of that.


If the minister, if the Liberal members, were to go on the forest base today and look at what has happened there or read the reports of some of the independent bodies that review forest practices in this province, the Forest Practices Board, you will find that the practices are simply not sustainable. They are designed for the short-term gain, largely, of income trust companies that have no long-term interest in the forest integrity in this province or anywhere else. The minister knows that.


The financial arm of this government, this Liberal government, invests heavily in those companies through their Investment Management Corporation. So they well know that the interests of these companies are not long-term forestry. These are not the old days of MacMillan Bloedel.


[1720]

We are in a time now that without strong government policy to protect the public interest, we are going to lose the integrity and the sustainability of our forest base forever. This piece of paper, I guess, in theory…. Some of my colleagues have said there's a good point to this, that it's trying to get people to buy more wood or use more B.C. wood. Well, it doesn't say "B.C. wood"; it just says "wood."


The reality of this is that the minister may do nothing under this act. That's what it says. It allows the minister the option to do nothing. Now, that was the status quo because, as I mentioned, the previous Finance Minister already admitted that that's what the policy was — to do nothing, to be a spectator while you watch logs and jobs leave this province, while there is no plan in place except to cater to those corporate interests that pay money to the B.C. Liberal Party.


That is the sum total of policy from this government. It is based on graft and, I would say, corruption. We need reform, electoral reform, in that regard. Never should this be allowed to happen, where Weyerhaeuser can give the B.C. Liberals $500,000 and the minister, against his own staff's advice, gives away 80,000 hectares out of tree farm licence 44 that rings the entire Alberni Valley — all at the expense of jobs, the industry and the environment.


Now, for $500,000 Weyerhaeuser got billions at public expense. I hope whoever negotiated that deal with this government and the two previous ministers and got all of that gravy, huge profit at public expense…. I hope whoever negotiated that for Weyerhaeuser got a bonus because, boy, does he deserve that or does she deserve that.


So the woulda coulda act has failed. The "would have" part is about: "You would have come up with policies, put them in place to protect forest jobs and forest integrity for perpetuity." Like the old Sloan report, the royal commission from the '50s — 800-plus pages talking about the importance of private and public lands, forest lands, being protected under the umbrella known as the tree farm licence system in British Columbia.


It was in the '50s that this lengthy report was done. Nothing has come in since then to compare. Every government since the '50s has respected the spirit and intent of the Sloan report, which in essence said that we need to protect the integrity and sustainability of our forest base — private and public lands under the control of public tree farm licences. Every government since that report has honoured that, because it's about the future. It's about our future economy. It's about jobs for our children.


Every government except this one. This government sold the farm, so to speak — the tree farm. They've given it away for a little bit of money.


So as we waited with bated breath, as the forest workers who were abandoned by funds that were supposed to be delivered to them to help…. We're talking about the community development trust moneys, almost all federal, that the province keeps taking credit for. The
[ Page 1071 ]
only thing the province has done to help forest workers wasn't to help them. They changed the criteria of those funds, the community development trust. They made it so you had to be over 60 so that you're eligible.


[1725]

Do you know how many people in the Alberni Valley that hurt, how many families? These workers and their families, forest communities, have been waiting for the government to do something, and this is it.


An Hon. Member: No props. Come on.


S. Fraser: We're not normally able to use props, granted, but it is the bill that we're discussing, so I don't consider it…. Well, actually, it is a prop. It is just an act, so to speak. It is the first wood act, and it's not a hard act to follow. I would add that too.


If you go into the forests, as I started to talk about before…. I have. I've gone on private managed forest land, tree farm licence land. I make a point of trying to see what I'm talking about in this place. If you look at the devastation on the forest floor — where whole mountainsides are taken down and those logs all exported to benefit forest communities in the United States, to benefit forest communities maybe in Japan or Korea — and you look at what's left and the waste wood on the forest floor, this is the short-term thinking that this government has become known for.


There's no plan. Even the Filmon report said you can't leave this stuff lying around. It's a fire hazard. We just had the worst fire season in the history of the province. This government largely ignored the recommendations of that report so many years ago that came out of that year when we had the Barriere fires and everything.


If you go up into the Beauforts up above Port Alberni, waste is all over the place. You know what? Local people can't even go out and get firewood there. It's going to either sit there and rot and add to our carbon footprint, provide no jobs, or it's going to burn in a fire and put all these communities at risk.


Wood first. Well, this is not addressing anything like that. This is about safety of forest communities. There's nothing in here that deals with this. There's nothing in here that addresses the great needs of the workers that have been abandoned by this government. There's nothing in here that suggests the government will stand up and fight for and with forest communities that are facing a legal challenge now on their ability and their rights to taxation.


Forest companies are taking my community to court. They're not paying their taxes. If you are a municipal mayor or councillor, as many of us on both sides of the House have met with at the recent UBCM…. Everyone would know there was a resolution there.


Where's the government? The government of British Columbia — not any party — is responsible for the tax structure that the municipal governments are required to work under. That very structure and the integrity of the ability of local governments to eke out enough funds with this government's off-loading and downloading to barely manage their jurisdictions…. That whole structure is being put at risk, and there's nothing in this bill that addresses that. There's no attempt by the government to step in there and help them, even though they're responsible for the very tax structure that's being threatened right now in court.


It's worse than that, because the previous Forests Minister, in a conference in 2006, publicly said to the room that it was communities like Port Alberni, Campbell River, Cowichan and Powell River that were dining out on the likes of industry, through taxation. So in other words, the previous Forests Minister incited this action of withholding taxes and incited the damage being caused by the court case on taxation, which is putting at risk the ability of local governments to run their communities.


[1730]

This is a bill on forestry that should have addressed that. It should have been addressed before it ever got to court, but it's completely lacking in anything — in everything — except that the minister may or may not do something, or nothing. Would have, could have — the act that shouldn't have been.


G. Gentner: I rise to address Bill 9 as well. I know I cannot echo the eloquence of the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, knowing that, in fact, his community is impacted more so than mine.


I do harken to the time when I grew up in Richmond and had a lot of friends who went into the wood industry. I actually meet them now and then. Many are unemployed. Many, of course, are on the welfare line. It's a culture that has certainly impacted them, this turnaround or downturn in the industry.


Frankly, in my community we do see the impacts as well. I remember very well the mills along the Fraser River, the Fraser mills, many of which were very much part of our community south of the Fraser and, of course, of the north.


This bill is the woulda, coulda bill, but it's also a wooden bill. It's a wooden bill because it's impassive, it's pretentious, it's pompous, and it's frankly deadpan. It has no substance to it at all.


[L. Reid in the chair.]


I have to think about the jobs in my community — the big stimulus package that this government's talking about. The biggest one they keep talking about is the South Fraser perimeter road. All these 30,000 jobs are going to be created by it and all the rest of it.


You know, a funny thing happened just before the election. I was driving along, and I talked to a contractor
[ Page 1072 ]
who was putting up signs along the South Fraser perimeter road. He was describing the hard work he was doing. He had an American accent, and I said: "Where are you from?" He said: "I'm from the States, and I'm putting up these signs." I said: "That's rather interesting. Hope you're having a good time."


I watched the signs he was putting up. The metal sign was fabricated and built in Tacoma. I thought: "Okay, I guess that's part of our stimulus package. We are going to put up metal signs to pronounce or to advertise the wonderment, the great accomplishments this government was to achieve just before the election." It was very interesting there. But I sort of twigged on something. I said: "Well, what about the wood?"


This government. It's: "Wood is good. Wood is great." 


So what's with the wood — 24 inch by 24 inch posts? I couldn't quite figure it out.


Not too far from where I live, there's a works yard, and there were these 24 inch by 24 inch posts piled up, neatly stacked. I went to the foreman there, and I said: "Can I take a look at these posts?" He said: "Yeah, come on. Take a look at it."


Stamped on it was "Stimson." Stimson? I never heard of Stimson. I said: "Where's that from? That's funny." Wood First. Wood is good.


Okay, so I put on my detective cap and my hat and late in the nighttime…. My dexterity was working overtime. I got a ladder and my little flashlight, and I shimmied up one of those posts where these beautiful signs were enunciating and telling the world the greatness of the Liberal government on the South Fraser perimeter road — advertised like it had never been seen before.


There were 22 of these signs marking all down South Fraser perimeter road, proposed; River Road, not even close to South Fraser perimeter road; and up and down Highway 1 telling the great virtues of what this government was going to give everybody. Late at night there we were, making sure that the then Minister of Transportation wouldn't catch us, to find out where these things could be stamped with this Stimson, to see if it was the same log.


Unfortunately, I couldn't find it until I got to the very top of the post. And with my flashlight, there it was. Stimson — stamped.


I said: "Hey, Stimson. Who are these guys?" Immediately I started thinking of the Premier. "We need…to make our forest industry strong again and to ensure a bright future for forest workers" — 2001.


[1735]

The forest revitalization plan, 2003, a brighter future. "We are reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province's number one industry, both at home and abroad. These changes will help revitalize the economy, generate jobs and spinoff benefits for communities and provide long-term contribution to our province's standard of living." Provide jobs. Provide jobs.


Then I did a little Google search and found out what Stimson was. They spent $20,000 to $30,000 on these posts, and we know that 20,000 people or more in the British Columbia forest industry have lost their jobs over the last two years. Where did the posts come from? Stimson — a mill outside of Portland, Oregon. Can you imagine? Wood First.


An Hon. Member: Wood fifth. Sixth.


G. Gentner: Wood last. American wood — oh, sure. I mean, this is the policy of this government. It's a softwood, soft-headed government. You know, you have to ask it. Here they're putting these signs up all over the place, bragging about their wonderful accomplishments in the coming election, and really, they're the sign of the times.


They're telling us what Wood First would look like in a bill, as the appropriate member was talking about: a page and a half. A half of a page. Blank. You know what? We have a government here that's buying lumber from a company that's trying to kill the industry.


I went further and found out. Who is this Stimson? What are these guys all about? Well, as it turns out, they're one of the largest contributing members to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports in the United States. They're trying to kill our industry. They're lobbying right now. They're signed up with a lobbyist in Victoria to kill the lumber industry in British Columbia, and what does this government do? They buy their lumber. It's called Wood First. But certainly not B.C. wood first.


It was the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports with Stimson that put the signs up. We read the coalition, what they're all…. It says: "Canada's unfair lumber subsidies have for decades harmed the U.S. lumber industry, threatening its workers and mounting unemployment and denying many tree farms a market for their timber industry." 


Isn't that something? Here's a company down in the States fighting like heck to secure jobs for American lumber workers, and what does this government do? They go and buy their wood.


Just around the corner from where I am, there's a mill called Sunbury Cedar. They make 24-by-24 inch posts. Unbelievable. We have a Mackenzie sawmill, a Surrey company three kilometres away from the Port Mann Bridge. In fact, it was only about half a kilometre from the Trans-Canada Highway , where they're putting up another sign using Stimson wood.


It's quite shocking to me that this government continues to create this artificial, bogus perception that they're doing something with this onerous piece of paper that's blank. It's wooden, and it's more of the same. It's more of the decade of deceit. That's what this is all about. It's nothing more than a spin job. And I do have to suggest that maybe there's some hope here.

[ Page 1073 ]

The member next to me talked about the fact that we may, the minister may, implement something. Well, I'm very skeptical, but we can talk about: "Maybe he will do something about the loss of the raw logs. Maybe he will make sure that the posts that are manufactured here in British Columbia will be used to propagandize their wonderful so-called pet projects."


At the very least, you'd think they could do that. But no, they won't, because this wood-first policy is a farce. It's a farce. If it was really committed to wood first in British Columbia, it would be called the B.C. Wood First Act. So I close with just that.


[1740]

I think to encapsulate what this bill is all about, you have to look at the actions of this government. Of course, that was happening during the election. They were actively putting up these signs, and they're still there. If you want to take a look at milled posts in North Delta, in Surrey, along the Trans-Canada highway…. Just look at those signs that are enunciating these wonderful projects this government is involved in. Take a really close look at what wood first means by this government. It means buying American wood before supporting our jobs in British Columbia.


M. Mungall: Having watched the government for the last eight years and now sitting across the floor from them, I finally have the opportunity to say to them directly that an act, which is a piece of legislation…. Because it's called an act, it isn't an excuse to just act like you're doing something. An act is a piece of legislation to actually show…. It's because you are supposed to be doing something.


For the folks who are just tuning in at home, welcome to the woulda-coulda-act show. Here we have an act that's saying that B.C.'s going for wood first. Of course my colleagues have already mentioned that nowhere in the act does it say that it's going to be B.C.'s wood first, and I dare say that's quite the omission on the government's part.


So here we are at the woulda-coulda-act show. You know, I think it's quite exemplary of what this government has been doing for the last eight years, doing a lot of stuff on the surface and not a lot of substance going on with the things that they've put forward to the people of British Columbia.


I have to say the two pages of this act that I read remind me of quite a few years ago when I was 19 years old working in Banff. In the springtime all the trees pollinate, and you have fluff all over the place, and people think: "Oh, goodness." Americans from the south that don't have snow would come up, and they'd always say to me: "Oh my goodness, it's snowing. It's snowing. It's so beautiful." No, it's not snow. It's just fluff. So it's just like in Banff. It wasn't snow. The Wood First Act isn't snow. It isn't something real. It isn't something to get excited about. It's just fluff.


I think it's interesting that it's just fluff, because there's something else that the government has done before that was just fluff. It has had tremendously negative consequences on, of course, logs going across the border or to wherever else, and that's the carbon tax. The carbon tax doesn't apply to fuel used for transferring raw logs out of the province. Because it doesn't, it provides more incentive to get those logs out of B.C. No more value-added, closing of mills, losing of jobs, and that's the story.


In fact, today in the Times Colonist there's an article right here. And for those of you who are my generation, who like me saw it first on YouTube, there's a video about using wood in mid-size apartment buildings to prevent destruction from earthquakes. That is wonderful. That is amazing. Guess whose wood is being used. B.C.'s. Right here in the article it says it's B.C. Doesn't that sound fantastic? Doesn't it sound great?


Well, you know what? It's just like with the carbon tax, though. The reason why our wood can go all the way over to China…. That shipping is one of the biggest contributors to climate change in this world today, one of the biggest contributors. Here we are having the carbon tax, which was supposed to actually have a positive impact on reducing climate change, reducing our impact on global warming. This was what the carbon tax was supposed to do, but because it allows for those raw logs to leave our country, to leave B.C., to take our jobs elsewhere, we are now increasing our impact on climate change, because away those logs go to China.


Interjection.


M. Mungall: The Liberals — that's right. My colleague down the row reminds us all that it is the Liberals' conscious act. Or you know what? Maybe it's unconscious, because they've been doing a lot of unconscious things lately and having to scramble and flip-flop because they are not doing due diligence. They are clearly demonstrating their incompetence to the people of British Columbia.


[1745]

So here we are. We've got the carbon tax. We all know that was superficial. We know that we're actually systemically increasing our impact on climate change. Just like the carbon tax, here we are — another Liberal piece of fluff. Another thing that is superficial, which isn't actually going to improve our forestry sector and isn't going to rebuild this sector that has been a driving economic force in this province. I find that shameful.


I find it shameful not because, like my predecessor who was a logger and regularly picked up a chainsaw and made his living from that…. In fact, I have to admit I've never picked up a chainsaw. I might chop my own wood for the fireplace, but I can't say that I bring to this role experience within the forestry sector.


But I do have experience with people who used to work in that sector. That's because for two years I ran
[ Page 1074 ]
a food bank in Nelson. Nelson is the hub of the West Kootenays where many, many people have worked in the forestry sector for decades. They're not working in that sector anymore.


How I saw them was when they came to me for food. Imagine that. Imagine that — people who their entire lives were self-sufficient, their entire lives could feed themselves and their family, their kids. They could take their kids and bring them to hockey practice or soccer practice. Their entire lives they didn't have to rely on anybody else because they had a good-paying job at a local mill that had logs from their community, right outside their community.


We all worked together. They used to be donors to the food banks. They used to help their neighbours who were less fortunate. They used to help people with mental illness. They used to help single moms. They used to help people with disabilities. Then one day they walk into that food bank, and it was the most disheartening thing to see — the amount of shame people felt because they lost their job through no fault of their own. They had to go and ask and beg for free food because they couldn't afford it anymore. That was so sad, and it was so sad to experience the effects of the downturn of the forestry sector in that way.


During the spring election I heard from many, many people who were just about to run out of EI. They had worked — again, just like those people I talked about at the food bank — for decades in the forestry sector. Suddenly they found themselves laid off. This is in Salmo, B.C., which is just, oh goodness, about 15 or 20 minutes away from the border. There's a border crossing not too far away.


I'd get letters and phone calls. They'd stop me in the street to tell me how they've been waiting for their job to come back for two years, and in those two years they watched the logging trucks rumble across the border every day. They watched their jobs rumble across the border every day.


You know, they deserve something much better. They deserve something much better than the would have, could have act — this piece of fluff of two pages that doesn't even acknowledge that it's B.C.'s wood that should be first in this province.


I think it was about a couple of weeks ago that I had the opportunity to visit a local mill. There are still some standing in my constituency, but the reason why they're standing is because they are value-added. They are using logs from the area, and they have found their niche market. They are not still standing because this government has done anything about it.


[1750]

It is despite the government. It is despite this government's actions in the last eight years. It is despite the total ignoring of the forestry sector that this government…. Wynndel Box and Lumber has done a tremendous job. They've identified their niche market, and they are gearing everything that they do towards that niche market. 


They are doing a fabulous job, not because this government has helped them out one bit. It's because they decided to scale back and move forward. They prioritized. They are a family business. They prioritized keeping those jobs in British Columbia and doing whatever they can to keep those jobs for the people in their community.


One gentleman I met was fourth generation. His family had been working at Wynndel Box and Lumber for four generations, many others for three generations. So many stories like that have been lost in British Columbia. This government has ignored them time and time again. It is shameful. It is absolutely shameful.


The people of British Columbia deserve something better. When all that's said, they deserve something better. In fact, you know what? They deserve something better than the HST. We keep hearing that this two-page act… "Well, it's okay, because the HST is going to come in and save the day. Here we have this wonderful thing. It's just going to come in and save the day," they say across the way. But nobody believes them, nor should they.


The idea that a consumer tax is going to come in and save the day for all of British Columbia is putting all your eggs in one basket, and we all know that that is absolute folly. The HST is not going to save the day.


And if it did save the day, when is that day going to come? When is this theoretical saving of the day ever going to show up? It's not helping the gentleman I just spoke about and the women I just spoke about, who are going to the food bank today because they lost their jobs in the forestry sector. 


So when is this big, great HST going to save the day for them? Because they're hungry today. Their children are hungry today. Their jobs are gone today, and they deserve better. They deserve better than a two-page piece of fluff.


You know, I had to take a minute there to think. I'm trying to think how on earth two pages are going to solve the problem. We've lost tens of thousands of jobs in this sector in less than a year.


Interjection.


M. Mungall: Again, my colleague down the row wants to very much clarify that when I say "we," I'm talking about British Columbians, but it was the Liberals who allowed it to happen.


It was the Liberals who allowed tens of thousands of jobs to be lost. They say: "Oh, but it's just the global market. It's not us. We didn't do anything. It's just the way the global market is." Well, goodness, things have been turning around and going south for quite a while, and they still are doing nothing except for a two-page
[ Page 1075 ]
piece of fluff, the would have, could have act. That's all they're offering.


They could have offered something last winter, in February. They could have offered something in the fall. They could have offered something two years ago. They could have offered something long before this day has come, and yet they haven't. All they've offered is a trickle-down economic theory that if we put wood first, then hopefully — oh hopefully — it's going to trickle down to British Columbia. That's a big reach.


There are the Liberals reaching, reaching, just reaching out into the air hoping for something to work for them, because my goodness, they're certainly not planning anything at all. They're not planning anything that's going to benefit British Columbians. They're not planning anything that's going to benefit our communities. They're just reaching and hoping, reaching and hoping.


Well, welcome to the world of reality. You've got to do a lot better than that, and British Columbians aren't buying your reaching and hoping anymore. They're not buying this show called the would have, could have act. They're not buying the piece of fluff. They want to see something. They want to see real action.


They want to see something coming from this government that is going to protect jobs in this province, that is going to protect our communities. They want to see it, and they deserve to see it. They deserve to see something better come from this government.


[1755]

We are tired — the people of British Columbia. We are tired of superficial actions, of superficial acts that clearly show that we only act like we're doing something, not that we are actually doing something.


We're tired of it. We know we deserve better, and we're going to continue fighting for that, despite what this government does and the fact that it has absolutely no plan for British Columbia.


H. Lali: I take my place in the debate here today on Bill 9. I know that the government calls it the Wood First Act. Some of my colleagues have quite eloquently called it the shoulda, coulda, woulda act. It's so appropriate because every time they've had the opportunity to do something in terms of saving jobs or doing something for forest companies and forest workers and forest communities — every time — they drop the ball.


That's why it's appropriate. They shoulda done something, but they didn't. They coulda done something, but they didn't. They said they woulda done something if they weren't blaming everything on the NDP, but they didn't.


It kind of reminds me of that old movie. I think it was Marlon Brando who starred in it. "I coulda been a contender." How about: "I shoulda been a contender"? Or maybe, as far as the Minister of Forests, my good friend who is sitting over there: "I woulda been a contender, only if…."


"I woulda been a contender" first act — that's what this act should be. Some of my colleagues have already spoken about: "What's in this act? What's in this act?" I know that some of the Liberals try to dream up things that are supposedly in this "woulda, shoulda, coulda, woulda contender" act, and there's nothing there.


If they really would have meant to do something to save jobs or to help forestry or to help forest workers and communities and all of those families that are dependent on those jobs all across British Columbia, they would have done something. They would have, but they didn't, because here's this act.


I'm looking at this book that's got all these acts. Some of them are, like, 50 pages, and others are probably 30 or 40 or a hundred pages. There's all this detail. If they're amending an act or if they're bringing in a new act to do something different in British Columbia, there are all these details that tell you how they're going to go about doing it.


The Premier, the cabinet, the Forests Minister and my Liberal colleagues across the way have been talking about all sorts of this dreamy-eyed stuff that they're going to do and how this is such cutting-edge, what they're going to do. But when you look at the bill, it's two pages.


I am looking through this, and I can't find a single thing that my Liberal colleagues are talking about doing that's in the act. Not a single thing. It's just words — fluff, as the member for Nelson-Creston so eloquently called it. It's fluff. It's superlatives. Feel good, but do nothing about it. That's what this act is all about.


When they say "act," you're supposed to act upon something. But when you look at the contents of this bill, there's nothing there that's actionable. So how could they stand up here one after the other, those Liberals, and say that they're going to support this with pride because it's going to do all these great and wonderful things that are not even in the act? They're not even in there.


That's what's the shame about it. It's because it is the "I shoulda, coulda, woulda been a contender" first act. What a shame. Here they are, after almost nine years of being in government, after making promises after promises of what they were going to do in terms of forestry and how they're going to help forestry, and every time, they came up with nothing. Absolutely nothing.


[1800]

Then somebody, probably in PAB — or some smarty aleck in the Forests Ministry who dreamed it up — said: "You know what? Let's give the people more of what they want. Let's give them more fluff." That's what they decided to do, because they're bringing in this act after nine years, and they think they can fool the people of British Columbia yet again.


Well, I've got news for the Forests Minister, because the people of British Columbia are not fooled; they're fed
[ Page 1076 ]
up. They're fed up with the inaction of this government who call themselves the great managers of the economy. What a bunch of fluff that is, because what we have seen — not just in forestry, but in almost every other sector, especially in the resource sectors of this province, especially in forestry — is the massive mismanagement and the incompetence of this government time after time after time again.


None of their dithering and their foot-dragging and the dilly-dallying is going to make up for the years that they've been lost in the woods, because that's how the policy of this Liberal government and this Liberal cabinet can be described. When it comes to forestry, they've been lost in the woods, and they have never been able to find their way back. That's what this act, which has nothing in it, is all about.


Because what they have done they have done from day one. They have done massive deregulation, and who does it favour? I'll tell you who it favours. There's an old saying that says: "He who pays the piper calls the tunes."


Who's calling the tunes? Who's writing the forest policy on behalf of the Liberal government? It's the CEOs of those international forest companies sitting in their boardrooms writing the forest policy, bringing it forward to the Liberal ministers in the cabinet so they can take out their big old rubber stamp and stamp it and say: "Here. It's signed, sealed and delivered." That's what this government has been doing, hon. Speaker.


You can bet…. Well, you don't need to bet. All you need to do is go to B.C. Elections. It's there, all on the website, how much money the piper has been paying. You know, in the old days when they talked about corrupt governments, they talked about kickbacks. It was usually, you know, that governments gave out a hundred thousand dollars, and somebody out there in the private world would kick back 10 percent of it.


Well, you know the funniest thing is, it's working in reverse. They give half a million dollars, I mean, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars — forest companies, big corporations — to the re-election campaigns of Liberal MLAs and to the Liberal party, election after election, and what do they get back as a kickback?


Not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands but tens and hundreds of millions — indeed, billions of dollars in terms of tax credits and the kind of deregulation that is benefiting those large corporations. And it's not creating jobs here in British Columbia. That's their definition of a kickback. Give little, but get a huge amount back, and what a shame that is.


One of the things is the softwood sellout. This government cut a secret deal with the federal Conservatives and Prime Minister Harper. On the eve of us Canadians about to deliver one of the greatest victories for the forest industry and the forest workers and the forest communities of this province, in terms of the softwood issue that was before the international court, they made a secret deal with the federal Conservatives one day before the decision came down that gave the victory to Canada.


This government colluded with the federal Liberals and left a billion dollars on the table, and one wonders what that billion dollars was for. What? Another kickback to those big companies that are going to turn around and fill the coffers of the re-election campaigns of the Liberal party? Is that what it was all about? When we were about to win, you go out there and you wave a white flag and you surrender to your opponents?


Because that's exactly what this Liberal government did. I didn't hear a single one of my Liberal colleagues across the way back then or even here today — or the Forests Minister who's sitting here in front of me — ever sit there and stand up on behalf of the people of British Columbia and say, "That was wrong," in terms of cutting that secret deal with the federal Conservatives.


[1805]

What they've done over that number of years is that they have allowed the most massive concentration of a resource into the hands of big business and corporations. That's what this government has been sitting here for the last 8½ years overseeing — allowing the transfer of the publicly owned resource into the hands and control of the large corporations that have their head offices, most of them, not even in British Columbia but in the United States or somewhere else across the world, where the forest policy for this government is being written, to be rubber-stamped by successive Ministers of Forests in this province.


Not once has any one of these ministers stood up to actually support the interests of British Columbians and all of those workers. There were a number of ways they did that, because it was all a part of the master plan and the master forest policy, the secret policy that is written in the boardrooms of those big corporations.


We used to have what was a 5 percent takeback in this province. When one company bought a sawmill or pulp mill or an operation from another and there was timber attached to it, we the government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, held 5 percent back and then put that out as a tender for small business. Most of that actually went into the hands of companies that were working with first nations to create jobs on reserves and also to create jobs and have some of that resource money transferred to all of those bands across the province who participated in those small licences under the 5 percent takeback.


I want to digress here for a few minutes in terms of what's happened to the first nations under this government. All they've ever received was platitudes from this government — the new era of reconciliation, the new relationship and a whole bunch of fancy words. When it actually comes down to creating jobs and improving the social conditions on reserves, this government has gone backwards.

[ Page 1077 ]

For five years we had an economic boom taking place across Canada. British Columbians were also benefiting, but not first nations. All they got from this government on a silver platter was platitudes. That's all they ever got — those empty promises.


When you look at the social and the economic conditions that exist on our first nations lands, on our first nations reserves, first nations communities…. I think that to call it a national shame would be an understatement. What is happening there in terms of the conditions, which this government has done nothing to improve, is a national disgrace. It's a provincial and a national disgrace, and it should not be allowed to go on like this government has done for the last decade.


You know, one of the other props that we had to keep jobs in communities, to keep sawmills and pulp mills open in all of those communities, providing family-supporting jobs…. We had a Job Protection Commissioner, whose job it was as an independent officer of this Legislature to actually go into communities — at the request of the mayor and council, the regional district, the first nations, the workers, the company or the government — and do an independent assessment and come back with advice to this House on how to keep jobs protected in those communities. They took that away in one of their massive cost-cutting measures in the year 2002.


Then they got rid of the 90-day mill closure review process. When a company wanted to close shop and get out of Dodge, they had to give 90 days' notice to the government and to the community so that a solution could be found in those 90 days to keep operations open in those communities.


I used it in my riding of Yale-Lillooet when I was the MLA. We saved Lytton Lumber by sending in the Job Protection Commissioner. We saved the operation that went from Weyerhaeuser to Aspen Planers in the community of Merritt.


I know that the Forests critic — who became the Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations — was criticizing me for taking on Weyerhaeuser at the time, and so were their Liberal friends in that community. But we saved jobs, and to this day there are a hundred people working on three shifts in that community of Merritt because we sent in the Job Protection Commissioner under the 90-day mill closure review process.


[1810]

Then it was Boston Bar's turn; 240 jobs were saved in the year 2000 because of the agreement that was set up to protect those jobs in that community. Lytton Lumber was allowed to go down the drain under this Liberal government because there was no job protection commissioner over the 90-day mill closure review process. The Boston Bar sawmill…. Six months after I left office, they allowed it to close and they took every stick of wood — 430,000 cubic metres of wood — down to Surrey, along with the 240 jobs that went with it. This government did it.


There was also the appurtenancy clause. That was the social contract that existed between forest companies and communities. It was there in legislation, and it had been there for decades, which meant that if you wanted to access a community's timber because it was in the vicinity of that community, they had to keep it in operation and jobs open in that particular community. They came in and changed the legislation, changed the Forest Act — again, I think it in was 2002 — and cut that tie.


Why did they do all of these things? Because their corporate buddies, who were filling the Liberal party's election campaign coffers with hundreds of thousands of dollars, demanded that they do that, and they did it at the behest of those big corporations. They did it at the behest of those corporations.


You know, I want to throw out some acronyms. I wonder if those members opposite know what they are. Whatever happened to IFPAs? I don't hear anybody on that side talk about IFPAs. For the benefit of those members who don't know, that's called the innovative forest practices agreements, which our government, when we were in office, instituted with those tenure holders so that if they would come up with ideas and ways and practices on their own tenures, then we would actually be able to increase the amount of wood that could be cut.


It was a carrot, and they did that by working in conjunction with first nations, because there was an annual allowable cut in Merritt that went up — 350,000 cubic metres in the Merritt TSA. Fully half of that went to the first nations to be able to create jobs for first nations and put money in the pockets of first nations workers. At the same time the timber would be milled in the tenure holders' mills.


IFPAs existed around the province. You don't hear that anymore from that side of the House.


SBFEP — does anybody on that side know what that means? Small Business Forest Enterprise Programme. When we took office in 1991, the amount of wood that was going into the hands of small business was less than 10 percent. Ten years later when we left office, it was double that. Well, I'll tell you, after only four years of Liberal rule — rule with an iron fist — that 20 percent went down to less than 10 percent — 9.5 percent. Because they killed the Small Business Forest Enterprise Programme, and they're not putting the wood into the hands of the small operators, but their corporate buddies.


The triple "s" operators — does anybody know what that is on the other side of the House? I doubt it, because none of them speaks about IFPAs, SBFEPs, or the triple "s" — small-scale salvage operators. There were literally dozens and dozens of these small operators, sometimes referred to as remanners or gyppo outfits — affectionately, not disparagingly — in all constituencies across the province where there was a for-
[ Page 1078 ]
estry base. Dozens of them, and you know what? They were creating jobs in the value-added sector and the remanufacturing sector.


Some firms might have only been a million dollar operation; others were bigger, about $10 million to $15 million operations — family-run operations that created those jobs. They weren't minimum, $8-an-hour jobs, and yes, they weren't $20-plus an hour union jobs. They were in between, anywhere between $13 to about $16, $17 an hour, and some of the folks that were actually working in those little operations earned even more than that if they were driving the heavy machinery.


[1815]

Well, you know, this government is acting so greedily on behalf of its corporate buddies who pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of the Liberal Party…. It won't even allow the small salvage operators to go into the forest floor after a big company has gone through it to salvage the wood that's lying there on the ground rotting.


I know the forestry critic talked about…. If you took that wood and put it on trucks, you could line it all the way here, from the steps of the Legislature to Halifax and back. That's how much wood this government and this minister, who is sitting here listening to this debate, are allowing to go to waste in our forest.


He won't put it into the hands of the small salvage operators or the small business forest enterprise program, to let them create the thousands of jobs that people in British Columbia are looking for. That's the kind of policy there. You know why? Because that big sledgehammer from their corporate buddies and those CEOs in those big corporate boardrooms will come down on their heads.


They will not get financing to fight their elections next time. That's how closely…. He who pays the piper calls the tunes, and it's happening with this government.


What has happened is the destruction of the value-added remanufacturing sector. What do they have in here to say? Woulda, shoulda, coulda first act, with no teeth. Nothing in here says how it's going to be implemented or how many jobs are going to be created or how they're even going to go about doing it. It's just superlatives, fluff and more words — false promises — as this government has been doing for the last nine years.


So as a result of the corporate concentration, as a result of all of those props that used to support communities and jobs in small communities, you know what has happened? This government has allowed the destruction of our forest industry in this province over the last 8½ years.


Over 70 sawmills and pulp mills have been closed by this Liberal government, and they've allowed every single company to walk away with the people's timber, as if it was their own, and take it to another community to feed some of the supermills that they're creating.


You know what? It's over 35,000 permanent forest jobs lost in this province under this Liberal government's destructive policies of corporate concentration and sellout under the softwood agreement. That's what they've done.


What we have seen is the most massive abandonment of rural communities in this province. Communities are dying and hemorrhaging because of lack of action from this government on the one side and also the total destruction of the forestry as we knew it before.


They talked about, in 2003, the revitalization strategy. Did you know, hon. Speaker, that half of those 70 sawmills and pulp mills in this province were allowed to be closed by the Liberal government under this so-called revitalization strategy? Did you know that, hon. Speaker? I wonder if the Forest Minister even knows that.


They did it under their revitalization strategy, when the lumber prices were at record highs. They were up to $700-and-some-odd a sling, and mills were closing under this government. They allowed it to happen and allowed the wood to be concentrated.


Then the minister's…. I think it was the former minister put out a round table. They were going to have a round table — not a square table, rectangular table. A round table. What was it made out of? I think it was made out of concrete.


Interjection.


H. Lali: There you go. Imported from somewhere else.


A round table, and nothing came out of that. Oh, yeah. There was some paper that came out. Their long anticipated…. After 7½ years their forest policy that was going to save the world came out with seven pages.


You know what those seven pages contained, hon. Speaker? More of this fluff that the minister is trying to peddle right here in this House under this Bill 9. More of this fluff that did absolutely nothing to revitalize forestry.


Don't get me even started on their pine beetle policy. Don't even get me started on that, because these guys deliberately allowed the pine beetle to get out of control. When they had the chance to come forward and match dollar for dollar the amount of money that was coming from the feds to deal with the pine beetle infestation, you know what these Liberal Ministers of Forests were doing? They were sleeping at the helm.


[1820]

They refused to come over with the matching funds of the $200 million that the federal government was willing to provide.


You know what these people need to do? What they need to do — because they won't do it….


Interjections.

[ Page 1079 ]

H. Lali: I can see I touched a nerve over there. I finally touched a nerve. They've woken up. I know the Finance Minister has woken up. He ought to wake up, because he's at the helm where there's such a big leak in the bottom of the tub that contains the treasury of this province, and it's all going down the drain under this minister's help. I think I just struck a nerve. I think I just stepped on one of his nerves, and he doesn't like it.


You know why? Because the truth hurts, and they know that. They know that. They don't have a policy, but you know what they can do? They can google www.bcndp.ca, and they will find a forestry plan. If they don't have one of their own, which they don't, we will gladly let them borrow it. Because you know what? Under that plan — and they can read about it in detail — there has to be a forest inventory that has to be done.


There has to be true tenure reform that has to take place in this province. We have to step up silviculture. They've pretty well absolved forest companies — because they asked them to — of doing any kind of silviculture work in the province.


When the NDP took office in 1991, we were a dozen years behind in 1991 in terms of the silviculture and the replanting that had to take place in British Columbia. Within seven years we had caught up. It was all caught up, and now we're five to six years behind again under this Liberal government, because they've let the forest companies — their buddies who finance their elections — off the hook yet again.


Need to end the raw log exports. Under the Social Credit it was 4 percent of our logs that were exported raw. When we took office in 1991…. By the time we left, it was down to a measly 1 percent and declining.


Under this government and under this Minister of Forest — what is it? It's 12 percent; 12 percent of our jobs are being exported by this minister who is from Prince George, who ought to know better, who ought to keep that wood in British Columbia, who ought to be keeping it in Prince George to create jobs in Prince George and in Mackenzie — that's in his territory — instead of shipping those jobs with those raw log exports to China and other places in the world.


All of those mills that this Forest Minister allowed to shut down, the pulp mills and sawmills — 70 plus. That doesn't include those little remanners and the gyppo outfits or the small-scale salvage operators. These are full-fledged sawmills and pulp mills.


Chinese companies and other companies bought those mills at the price of the steel — not even of the mill — tore them down, took them over to China and rebuilt them. And you know the raw logs that this Minister of Forests is allowing to be shipped to China? They're taking not only our mills; they've taken our raw logs, and they're the ones who are creating those jobs in China instead of the jobs being created right here in British Columbia like they used to be in the 1990s.


Some 35,000 jobs have been lost under this Liberal government, and not a single one of them actually stands up to rail against their own policies and stand up for the people of British Columbia and those small communities.


We need to actually fund research and development and value-added products so that…. Like my hon. colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston said, there are still mills running across the province and in her area, but they're the value-added remanufacturers, because they know how to make a pretty penny. They know how to take garbage and turn it into gold, which that minister won't allow them to take out of the forest floor. He's allowing it to rot.


Thousands of truckloads of good wood. Not good enough for the big companies, but good enough for the little guys, because they can take it — garbage to gold — and create jobs in those small communities where this Liberal government has allowed mills to be pulled out.


Also, in terms of the policy that they could borrow, some of the stumpage that we collect as a province can be returned back to those communities where this Liberal government has caused the destruction and the devastation.


[1825]

So I don't know how these Liberal members — and I don't know how my rural Liberal colleagues — can stand up in this House one by one, one after the other, and defend the policies of this Liberal government. I don't know how they could actually be part of the collusion, part of the deception and deceit that takes place in this House and out there by this Liberal government.


Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, I would ask you to withdraw.


H. Lali: I'll take it back.


I just don't know, hon. Speaker, but I'll tell you one thing. On this side we don't believe the Liberals. And you know what, hon. Speaker? When you go out there, there is a huge credibility gap that the supposed managers of the economy have out there with the people. You know why, hon. Speaker? No one in British Columbia believes the Liberals.


J. Horgan: I want to thank my colleague from Fraser-Nicola for making me appear moderate and reasonable as I take my place at this late hour to offer my comments on Bill 9, the Wood First Act.


Interjection.


J. Horgan: Again, my good friend from Mackenzie can't get 30 seconds into my comments without saying something disingenuous and insincere.

[ Page 1080 ]

However, I should say that the comments and hectoring from the member are more than he gave me in estimates yesterday when I asked him a few basic questions about raw log exports — which will be, I hope you'll understand, the focus of my comments on the Wood First Act here today.


Interjection


J. Horgan: There you go. There you go. What a great Canadian.


I want to draw attention — I know other members have spoken about this today in this place — to the purpose of the act, because with most pieces of legislation that come to this place, many of them are weighty. I heard the Minister of Finance and the official opposition Finance critic doing an extraordinary job and doing good work for the people of B.C. on this insurance act, for example, just the other day. Some 150- or 160-odd clauses, just about three-quarters of an inch thick — good work, good public policy development by both sides of the House.


Yet here in British Columbia, formerly a lumber province, formerly driven by companies like Munns logging, Ted Leroy contracting, Hayes logging, Madill logging…. All four of those companies are generational companies on Vancouver Island now out of business on the watch of that member over there, the current Minister of Forests. It really is a tragedy.


My colleague from Nelson-Creston spoke passionately about forest workers and the forest industry in the Kootenays. We've heard from our critic from Columbia River–Revelstoke, from the Cariboo. But here on Vancouver Island, particularly south of the Cowichan River, the forest industry is virtually nonexistent.


The last significant act by this government with respect to the forest industry on Vancouver Island was the dismantling of the tree farm licence system back in 2007 when the member from Langley, then the minister — without consultation, without compensation, without a peep in this Legislature — allowed Western Forest Products to remove 28,000 hectares of land from a tree farm licence that had been in existence for over 50 years. 


I raised this issue with the minister in estimates in anticipation of an answer from him on how the Wood First Act and this policy of dismantling tree farm licences was going to revitalize the forest sector on Vancouver Island.


This government and colleagues you will know, hon. Speaker, like to talk in historic terms. "Today is the most historic October 7 in the history of 2009." That's the sort of pronouncements these people like to make.


Well, there were historic events on Vancouver Island on the watch of the minister from Mackenzie. There were two of the largest equipment auctions in history here when the forest sector virtually disappeared. With the leadership of the member for Mackenzie and the former leader from Langley, forestry on Vancouver Island virtually disappeared.


We heard from the member for North Island talking about TimberWest closing mills in Campbell River. There are no mills in my constituency, not one — not one in Sooke, not one in Jordan River, not one in Port Renfrew, nothing in the Interior. We have three companies — Western Forest Products, TimberWest, Island Timberlands — all with significant real estate divisions.


[1830]

I suppose we can take some comfort that the Wood First Act might mean we'll have wood-framed condominiums from Songhees to Sombrio. That's forestry policy on that side of the House. "Let's sell waterfront property and put in beach house bungalows made out of Douglas fir." Excellent. Good work. Way to go, Member from Mackenzie. Another heroic move to try and revitalize forestry in British Columbia.


The throne speech — the document that's read by the Lieutenant-Governor to lay out the plan for the government in the coming fiscal year. We heard it in August this year, and they spoke about this bill. They spoke about the Wood First Act, and it was with some anticipation that I awaited its tabling.


I thought: "My goodness, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have been misleading my family and my friends when I speak about the incompetence of the member from Mackenzie, as perhaps the most atrocious Forestry Minister we've had in a century in this province. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps something weighty and substantial will come to this place that will revitalize forestry on Vancouver Island." The coastal industry — 25,000 jobs gone.


Let me read the purpose of our weighty bill, referred to in the throne speech. I would argue that there's more verbiage in the throne speech about this bill than there is in this bill. But it goes as follows: "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate a culture of wood by requiring the use of wood as the primary building material in all new provincially funded buildings, in a manner consistent with the British Columbia Building Code." That's the purpose of the act.


In fact, those three sentences make up, I would argue, 25 percent of this bill. That's the purpose; that's the intent: to facilitate a culture. It's like the yogurt at the back of your fridge. That's what they're talking about here. It's not going to do a single thing to recreate Munns logging, Ted Leroy contracting, Hayes logging or Madill. Four companies, four private sector companies, that were doing very well in the 1990s.


People might recall the 1990s. That's the decade that they don't like to talk about unless it's in terms of dire despair. But during that time, you know what happened on Vancouver Island? People worked in the woods. There
[ Page 1081 ]
were mills on Vancouver Island that were employing people day after day, three shifts in some instances. What's happening now? The privatizers, the deregulators, have eliminated forestry in the constituency of Juan de Fuca. It doesn't happen anymore. It's not there.


But yet, we're going to facilitate a culture of wood as a result of this weighty and substantial piece of legislation tabled by the member from Mackenzie. Two pieces of paper — one that says "Bill 9" on the front of it; one that says "Explanatory Note." We're down to one piece of paper on both sides. I have to admit, it is on both sides. It almost gets to about two-thirds of the way down the second page. It's very close to two pages — very, very close.


Now, again, I want to thank my friend from Fraser-Nicola for making me appear to be the reasonable and moderate one in this debate, but I didn't want to miss the opportunity to have a chance to stand up for the people in my constituency and raise issues of substance about forestry and about job creation on Vancouver Island.


Now, this will come as a surprise to the member from Mackenzie, but we are in Victoria. We're at the capital of British Columbia. It's located on Vancouver Island, which used to have a vibrant and dynamic forest sector. It used to have. In fact, in 2001 there were people working in mills. There were people working in the pulp sector and dimensional lumber. There was a value-added sector growing.


We had gone through land use planning through the 1990s. We had set aside places where activity would happen in the forest industry. The war in the woods was over. The Clayoquot issue had been resolved. And then what happened? The B.C. Liberals were elected. They were going to turn everything around.


After eight years, 25,000 jobs lost, four generational logging contractors gone under, the largest equipment auction in history…. We had proud men and women selling equipment that they had worked and sweated and slaved to purchase. And what did we get from the government on the other side? Zero. Nothing.


[1835]

My colleague from Cariboo North put forward, with those of us here in the opposition that were in the 38th parliament, a very positive and forward-looking forestry policy. What did we get from the government on the other side — staffed with officials in their ministry, with access to resources and revenues and, one would think, ideas? What did we get from them, hon. Speaker? I know you're not going to answer that question. It's a rhetorical question. But we got nothing. We got nothing — until today.


We got a promise in the throne speech, about two or three paragraphs in the throne speech, about how we're going to make buildings taller and make them out of wood. Well, my oh my, that was just an epiphany for me. I thought: "Wood. Why didn't we think of that earlier?" Let's make buildings out of wood. Unbelievable.


I thought: "My gosh, if this gets out that we have wood here, that we can build, erect, structures — edifices — that we can live in, that we can work in, that we can do commerce in, my goodness, it's revolutionary." So when the throne speech told me of this, the epiphany was there.


I thought: "The bill will come in. It will be weighty. It will be substantial. It will be debated in this place." There will be reason, as we've heard from the member for Fraser-Nicola and from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the minister from Mackenzie will be proud to say: "This is an advance in the industry. This is what we've been asking for. Workers, owners, shareholders — they've been waiting for this. We're going to now build with wood."


Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to give this to the government for that. What a good idea. I don't know how we spent 150 years in this province and didn't come up with that. We could have done it in two pages. That's the best part.


I don't know. I guess in some instances, I have to, again, tip my hat to the Minister of Forests, who in estimates debate when we're talking about forest policy, the service plan for the ministry…. I said: "What's the plan for the Western Forest Products lands that were privatized?" We had a three-year agreement — admittedly, negotiated by the outgoing minister from Langley. We had a three-year moratorium on the export of raw logs. That moratorium will end this January, within this fiscal year.


I asked the minister. I said: "Minister, what's the plan? Are we just going to let these logs fly offshore?" I mean, after all, we could probably make them into dimensional lumber and build houses with it. This was the new idea. This was the breakthrough that we'd had, wrestling with this issue. What do we do with all these trees? I've got an idea. Let's make houses out of them.


Well, I asked the minister: "What's the plan?" Now that we're going to be building with wood, why don't we try and restrict the number of logs that we're sending elsewhere? Why don't we turn that into dimensional lumber? Why don't we make doorjambs? Why don't we make desks and tables? Why don't we do something with these trees?


Sorry, can't answer that question. Can't answer that question, because it's not in the purview of the minister. These are private lands. These are private lands. "Out of my hands. It's a federal responsibility."


I was dumbstruck, and I know that that's hard to believe. I was mute for a moment — just a moment, mind. But I was mute — that the Minister of Forests, the person charged by the Queen of England to take care of our resources on the land base…. "Not my problem, man. Wasn't me. Talk to the guy from Langley. He's the one that gave the lands away. He's the one that cut the deal, so I really can't help you or your constituents."

[ Page 1082 ]

The 28,000 hectares of forestable land that was part of a tree farm licence that committed the company to the community, to the Crown — which had worked very, very well for half a century…. They threw it out the door. They gave us a three-year window where there would be no raw log exports. They opened up the real estate market. Western Forest Products couldn't have been happier.


And come January they'll be sending those logs offshore. They won't be milling them here, and it's not the Minister of Forests' problem. "Federal responsibility," he said. Federal responsibility. Excellent. Perfect. The old Canadian: "That way. It's not me."


If we go to Ottawa, and we ask the Minister of Natural Resources what he's going to do about it…. Well, probably about as much as the Minister of Forests here, but we will at least be able to go to Ottawa and say that we've got a brilliant idea. We're going to build houses out of wood. That's our plan.


As members have commented today…. I know my colleague from Pacific Rim made the point quite eloquently: "We're going to build them out of wood, but it doesn't have to be wood from B.C." I'm sure they wanted to keep it to under two pages, so if they'd put "British Columbia" — which, as you know, has a number of letters — in it, it might have pulled it down to having to go to the third page.


[1840]

So let's not put British Columbia in the bill anywhere. Heaven forbid. That might be subject to accusations of protectionism. We don't want Barack Obama to find out that we're using wood to build houses, and it might be B.C. wood. Shhh."


Keep it under your hat, hon. Speaker. I know you've got a very good hat. That's one of the perks of the job. I would love to be Speaker, if only to wear the hat — and also, mind, for the respect we all give to the Chair and the occupant of it. And I'm genuine when I say that.


But imagine. If you had the opportunity to say to the world, "We're going to use wood," why wouldn't you say: "We're going to use B.C. wood"? I would think that would be a marketing technique, at least.


Maybe the people at public affairs, instead of monitoring the media, might come up with some creative ideas. "I've got an idea. Tourism B.C. We could…. Oh no, we can't do that." But the upside is that they're so fully occupied in the Ministry of Tourism giving answers to the…. Oh no, they're not. That's right. They're not giving answers to the Minister of Tourism, so maybe we could put some of those resources into marketing wood — B.C. wood. We'd have to put it in the bill that the wood must come from British Columbia, but…. Well, who knows?


I do look at…. It says British Columbia on the front here, but that's in reference to the Legislature that we're sitting in, allegedly — allegedly — representing the people in our constituencies: forest workers who used to work in the forests in my community. Unfortunately, this bill falls way, way short of that.


A lot of hype. Throne speech. The hon. Lieutenant-Governor sat in this place. He read the words. There was optimism. There was hope — all of that dashed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie when he put down this weighty and substantive tome for us to debate in this place.


It's regrettable. I do believe…. I've consulted with the opposition critic. We are going to support the self-evident — that we might want to use wood to build houses. We are going to support that.


I don't want to take up too much time, because I'm sure the member for Prince George–Mackenzie will have something poignant and relevant to say as we move from second reading to committee stage.


With that, having had the opportunity to at least raise some of the issues that I would have liked to have asked the Minister of Forests in estimates, where he should have taken some responsibility and accountability for the forests of British Columbia…. Refused to do so.


I've had the opportunity to have my say, to point to him and say: "Hon. Member, it's a crying shame that you won't be accountable for the actions of your government, but at least you've come to the self-evident — that we're going to now use wood, maybe 2-by-4s, maybe other dimensional lumber, to build houses in British Columbia and other buildings."


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


Hon. P. Bell: I'm tempted to respond to some of the rhetoric that I've been listening to over the last four and a half hours, but if I even began to start going through in detail the misinformation, the inaccuracies, that were relayed to me, we would be here well into tomorrow as well. So I'm not going to do that.


[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]


I think, basically, what I heard from the opposition was a couple of key things. One was that they don't believe that this act will accomplish what the stated objectives are, that it won't make a meaningful difference. If that is truly the case, then we will find out where they stand on this within the next five or seven minutes, because they're going to have an opportunity to vote on it.


In fact, if they believe that the act won't accomplish those tasks, then I'm sure they'll vote in opposition to it. I'm sure they will vote no to this bill. We'll find out in a few minutes whether or not that is the case. We did just listen to, by my calculations, about four and a quarter hours of rhetoric, of people telling us that this won't accomplish anything, that it's meaningless, that it's fluff. We heard that lots from the member for Nelson-Creston.

[ Page 1083 ]

It's going to be interesting for me, I think, to see whether or not they vote in favour or if they oppose this bill. I think that's ultimately what it will come down to. If in fact they support it, then clearly it's been a waste of time to listen to that nonsense over the last four and a quarter hours.


If they oppose it, I guess they have made their point, and that's acceptable. They can live with the points that they've made in this House, because I'm sure that we're going to be replaying them extensively over time.


There are just kind of amazing pieces of misinformation that were provided here today, but I think the real nuts and bolts of the work that we've done to try and rebuild the forest industry stems back to one basic fact, and that's this.


[1845]

There's only one time in the history of British Columbia — only one time in the history of British Columbia — where B.C. has not shipped more than 50 percent of the total lumber coming out of Canada into the United States. Only one time in the entire history of British Columbia. That occurred from 1997 to 2002 under that government's administration. That's a clear demonstration of their inability to understand economics and make sure that we have a competitive industry.


This government has restored that back to about 60 percent of the total lumber exports into the United States. That's a demonstration of this government's commitment to the forest industry and its ability to achieve long-term results.


With that, I move second reading.


Mr. Speaker: Members, please take your seats.


[1850]

Second reading of Bill 9 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. P. Bell: That's amazing. I thought for sure we were going to have some nays there, based on the debate.


I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.


Bill 9, Wood First Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.


Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.


Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.


Motion approved.


Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.


The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM


Committee of Supply


ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE


(continued)


The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.


The committee met at 2:40 p.m.


On Vote 42: ministry operations, $755,783,000 (continued).


G. Coons: We're going to return to Vote 42, dealing with coastal ferries, and I'd like to pass this opportunity to a couple of my colleagues to ask some questions of the minister, and then I'll return to the floor.


V. Huntington: My questions to the minister refer, primarily, to the government subsidies to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the mandate of the commissioner of ferries and the policy issue of public sector competition with the private sector.


Firstly, I'd like to agree with the minister's statement that the ferry corporation is expected to be more efficient and innovative. My concern, however, is how a public corporation enters the market. I believe that is what is important to the public interest and the public good.


I also understand the separation between the government and the B.C. Ferry Corporation and will try to respect that in my questions to the minister. As the minister stated yesterday, BCF is set up to preclude government intervention and is a private company.


I would like to determine, if the minister will, how the government determines the level of subsidy to British Columbia Ferry Corporation.


Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it's a negotiated amount. It is based on the additional resources that are required to support service on the minor routes.


V. Huntington: There is a 1977 agreement between the federal government and the provincial government. Could the minister describe the reason behind and purpose of what appears to be a transfer agreement?


[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: I would like you to know that one of my ADMs was in grade 10 at that time, so he really has very little recollection of what happened there. But we
[ Page 1084 ]
did our best in our corporate understanding to actually come up with the answer. I'll leave it to all the members in the room to guess which one of those it might be that was in grade 10 at that point in time.


Basically, the federal government operated the minor routes. They actually stopped doing that and agreed with the province that the province would make sure that that service was provided and so at that time began to share funds with the province in terms of making sure those minor routes were taken care of, but they no longer provided the service on those routes.


V. Huntington: That's interesting. Maybe I could ask three quick questions on that. Is the agreement reviewed regularly — for instance, on an annual basis? And is it specifically designated to those minor routes?


Hon. S. Bond: There is not an annual review. There is a periodic review, which is called for by the federal government, so periodically, and yes, designated to the minor routes.


V. Huntington: With the subsidy the provincial government provides to the minor routes, as they're called, is there a contractual obligation between the government and B.C. Ferries for those service fees, I think you call them?


Hon. S. Bond: Yes.


V. Huntington: I think, Mr. Chair, that if I were king and could reform the system, we'd sit down and talk.


Is there a maximum to those service fees?


Hon. S. Bond: There is a fixed amount. It's based on described service levels, so it is a fixed amount that is provided.


V. Huntington: Has the government ever paid more than that fixed amount?


Hon. S. Bond: I just want to ask the member opposite for clarity, because I want to make sure that we give the member the correct information. Is the member referring to the amount that is actually provided by the federal government or the total service contract that we have with B.C. Ferries?


V. Huntington: I'm sort of past the federal government amount and on the managed service fees that the B.C. government provides.


[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: Generally speaking — and we're just trying to get a handle on when and if that that might change — the service contract is the service contract. From time to time, through negotiations, there may be an amendment to that service contract which would see additional dollars flow, or there may be a separate agreement, which would also provide some additional revenue.


But generally speaking, the contract that's negotiated, the service contract that is determined, is the actual amount that is transferred.


V. Huntington: The ferry commissioner indicated or recommended…. He wanted the cross-subsidization from that subsidy, from the major routes to the minor, ended by '08-09. Has that occurred?


Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, staff informs me that yes, it has.


V. Huntington: Is it the ferry commissioner himself who ensures that all is well in that area?


Hon. S. Bond: Yes.


V. Huntington: Would the minister please advise us: what other subsidies were provided to B.C. Ferry Corporation in '08-09?


Hon. S. Bond: In '08-09 there was actually an additional $20 million that was provided. It was for the reduction of fees, and that was for a two-month period. That was in addition to the service contract.


Staff also advises me that there were two other small amounts that were also provided, but they're very small, and we don't have the specific details here but happy to provide those. The largest addition was the $20 million.


[1455]

V. Huntington: I think that one of the others was a $1.2 million subsidy for certain sailings. Could you explain what that might be?


Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons we're discussing an answer here is because it was one of the two small amounts that we're not sure of the details of, but we certainly believe it was related to maintenance of service between Horseshoe Bay and Langdale. There was a specific separate agreement based on that particular route.


V. Huntington: Could the minister discuss what prompted the government to involve itself with providing those subsidies and whether she might consider this to be an intervention in B.C. Ferries on the government's part?


Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the rationale was that a decision was made to adjust schedules, and in fact, it had a
[ Page 1085 ]
significant impact on people. Mainly, it was the first sailing of the day, so it had some significant challenges on the beginning and the end of the day.


We did not intervene in the sense of changing of the model. What we did was purchase additional service above the contract. In effect, we had the service contract in place, and we purchased additional service.


V. Huntington: I guess what concerns me…. If the minister could give me her comments on whether she feels that intervention in that manner with the levels of service really, in effect, helps B.C. Ferries become more efficient — if at any time the government can step in and provide the additional funding for operations.


[1500]

The Chair: If I could remind all members that questions should be directed towards Vote 42 and towards the operating budget of 2009-2010.


Hon. S. Bond: We do have an expectation that B.C. Ferries look for ways to be more innovative and more efficient. I should say — I did say this yesterday, and I will repeat it — that I think that we have seen some important progress being made by B.C. Ferries.


We've seen customer satisfaction rise dramatically when you look at the work that they've done. We've actually seen on-time service improve. We have a very good working relationship with them. We don't at all consider this intervention.


I think what we did was look at, during…. Especially, looking for economic stability, we made a decision to purchase additional service. That was mainly related to the fact that there was a significant impact in terms of the particular sailings. We don't consider that intervention.


The member's question: should we be making sure that B.C. Ferries recognizes the importance of being more innovative? I think that's absolutely critical to the mandate that they've been given.


V. Huntington: Are all the revenues of B.C. Ferries taken into account when determining the subsidies for the non-viable routes? In other words, are the profits required to be applied against those non-viable routes? 


Hon. S. Bond: I think what's important in terms of that question is that it's actually the ferry commissioner that looks at revenue and expense and then determines price caps. That's the ferry commissioner's role. What we look at and consider is service. 


V. Huntington: Oh dear. Are the ancillary revenues — the reservation profits, the leases on quay operations, etc. — taken into account when determining the subsidies?


[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, ancillary revenue is considered by the ferry commissioner in looking at revenue.


V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister or her staff could, perhaps, get back to me on that and confirm that. My understanding is that it was not, and I'd very much like to know where I can find that information. Thank you.


Could the minister advise whether B.C. Ferries pays corporate income tax and what their preferential property tax rates are or how that was determined?


Hon. S. Bond: That is outside the scope of Vote 42. B.C. Ferries would have to discuss that.


V. Huntington: The Ferry Commission regulates under a series of principles. One is that ferry operators should "adopt a commercial approach to ferry service delivery" and ferry operators should "seek additional or alternative service providers on designated ferry routes through fair and open competitive processes."


I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the government support for commercial activity should be supportive of free enterprise and the practice of fair and open competitive processes on the part of B.C. Ferries.


Hon. S. Bond: B.C. Ferries is an independently run company, and in fact, the subsidy that is covered under Vote 42 is actually related to the minor routes specifically.


V. Huntington: Unfortunately, I'm under a bit of pressure here. There is another member that wanted to ask questions and is on a timeline, so perhaps you could advise my best route here.


The Chair: The member who has the floor could ask the questions, or they could allow somebody else to ask questions and stand up when that person is finished.


V. Huntington: I shall do that, and thank you, Mr. Chair.


N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure if I'm interrupting or if the member for Delta South has completed.


The Chair: Please continue.


N. Simons: I'm just wondering if the minister can tell us if the purchase back of the ferry sailing that was cancelled by B.C. Ferries at the end of 2008 will continue to be purchased by the government, as it is currently?


Hon. S. Bond: That's a hypothetical question, because obviously the current status is in place. I'm not going to speculate about that. What we would do is look at
[ Page 1086 ]
circumstances at the time. But in fact those runs are currently in place.


N. Simons: Actually, the promise from the government when they announced their economic stimulus plan, ten-point plan…. One of the key parts of that plan was to restore the first sailing from Langdale and from Horseshoe Bay.


[1510]

My understanding, and I might be wrong, was that that was scheduled to be ended at the end of March. However, that sailing continues — that essential sailing. All of the sailings, as far as I'm concerned, are essential. There are commuters going back and forth every day.


I'd just like a bit of certainty for the community in Gibsons and Sechelt and the lower Sunshine Coast as to whether or not their sailings are about to be or are being changed.


Hon. S. Bond: I think it's fair to say that B.C. Ferries is aware of the importance of the sailing. They're certainly working very hard to maintain that level of service. Certainly at this point, to the member opposite, I understand how important it is and appreciate his comments. We anticipate no imminent change.


N. Simons: Another issue facing, primarily, residents on the lower Sunshine Coast is the issue of the Langdale dock, which is next to the main berth and serves the passenger ferry Stormaway going to and from Keats and Gambier Island to the ferry terminal. B.C. Ferries has informed residents that they no longer want the public to access this dock, which has been used by the public for generations without incident.


B.C. Ferries is now telling the community that they need to pay for a new dock in the amount of approximately $500,000 to $700,000. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of this demand by B.C. Ferries and if she's aware that B.C. Ferries has set the deadline as October 15 to terminate the use of that dock, which has been used for, as I said, half a century. If so, perhaps the minister can offer some assurances to the community.


Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I am aware of that circumstance. Our staff are as well and have spent some time discussing this. I think it's important to note that the reason that the issue arose is because it's a federal government security issue, and B.C. Ferries needed to respond to that.


I think B.C. Ferries has been working with the Sunshine Coast regional district since the impact of the new federal regulations. B.C. Ferries has agreed and offered to contribute up to $25,000 toward the construction of an alternate dock facility.


In fact, staff advise me that while the deadline is somewhat imminent, as the member points out, B.C. Ferries is willing to see an extension of that deadline if there is some sort of viable solution that might be considered.


I think that there is a sense of trying to work out this issue. We understand the importance of it, and B.C. Ferries is prepared to continue to look for a viable solution.


N. Simons: I'm pleased to hear that, and I'm sure the residents of Gambier, Keats and the lower Sunshine Coast are as well.


The initial reason given by B.C. Ferries, stated publicly on record, was that it was a safety issue and that they were concerned about boats going across the bow of the Queen of Surrey.


They offered, they said, a third of the cost of a new dock and offered $25,000. That's 5 percent, actually, of the projected cost, and I think that the projected cost was on the low end.


What my question concerns is the tax base. The community is now required to find money. It's all the same taxpayer, but over $500,000 in order to pay for a dock that…. If you ask anybody on the Sunshine Coast, it's unnecessary, it's superfluous, and it's meaningless in terms of security.


[1515]

I'm wondering if the minister can perhaps in the future indicate to me if there has been any correspondence with the government with respect to this federal requirement. Rob Clarke of B.C. Ferries said that the security issue was not the main issue, that they called it the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is going to cost residents of the Sunshine Coast over $500,000. That's pretty expensive, and it's not very sweet.


I'm hoping that maybe the minister can speak to B.C. Ferries about possibly alleviating some of the direct impact of this serious expenditure. 


Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the information that we've been provided with and that our staff has provided me with does suggest that the use of the Langdale dock has a great deal to do with Transport Canada security regulations. Maybe it is a cumulative impact in terms of — as the member points out…. I can assure the member opposite that our staff will continue to work with B.C. Ferries to try to find a reasonable solution to this.


I should also mention that we think that the regional district may have applied for additional funds through a number of other funds, including the community adjustment fund at Island Coastal Economic Trust. I assume that those applications are still in process.


I think the important point is that I can ensure the member opposite our staff will again talk to B.C. Ferries and make sure that they're aware of the importance of this discussion. We will be hopeful around some additional funding through the other mechanisms as well.

[ Page 1087 ]

G. Coons: Thank you, minister, for continuing the discussion on ferries. I just wanted to clarify something. When the minister talked about credit ratings yesterday and on record, she said that B.C. Ferries has an A credit rating from Standard and Poor's, but actually it's an A-minus from Standard and Poor's and an A-low from DBRS. So just a clarification and to get that on record.


Again, when we look at the $171.9 million under Vote 42, I've tried to get from the minister who is actually in control of B.C. Ferries, and she said David Hahn is the CEO. Yes, but I wanted to know who the ultimate person is in control of B.C. Ferries for the government. Who is responsible in this Legislature for the $172 million under Vote 42, and who is responsible for holding the board of directors accountable?


Hon. S. Bond: Ultimately, the member opposite would know that we, through a service contract, are responsible as a government and for the taxpayers of British Columbia for the almost $172 million, and as I did mention yesterday, the Ferry Authority has oversight of the board.


G. Coons: As we saw in the Auditor General's report from 2006, there are various legal entities, and the Auditor General had a concern and suggested that the Minister of Transportation do a comprehensive summary report in the service plan. I'll hopefully get to that later.


Again, there are various entities in how the Ferry Corporation operates, and it somewhat disperses accountability. I think that was a concern that the Auditor General had.


[1520]

I believe that the minister of the Crown holding the sole share is ultimately responsible and accountable for not only the contract but for the level of due diligence produced by the board of directors in managing the operations, looking at the value for money and fairness and the passenger and crew safety.


As well, she's ultimately responsible for how the board explains how it's discharging its duties in meeting the public accountability for British Columbians and ensuring it's fit, full and fair.


Again, does the minister see her role as ultimately being responsible for what the board of directors does?


Hon. S. Bond: We'll just review this again. Firstly, the responsibility of the province is related to the service contract and the almost $172 million that taxpayers actually invest in the minor routes. Secondly, the oversight of the board is done by the Ferry Authority, and thirdly, the public interest is actually regulated by the ferry commissioner.


G. Coons: Does anybody from the B.C. Ferries board of directors or the authority board report to the minister?


Hon. S. Bond: No.


G. Coons: In other words, if I get this straight, under Vote 42 we have $172 million, which is more than eight ministries in this Legislature, and nobody from B.C. Ferries' board of directors — either from the authority or from the board — reports back to the government or to the minister. I find that totally illogical and inappropriate.


I understand now why the minister has this review, because as we've said before, this government and this minister…. Under the creation of the Coastal Ferry Act and the entity that they've created, there's no transparency, there's no accountability, and the board of directors reports to nobody. So I understand where we're going.


I understand under the board of directors…. They make decisions on compensation levels. As the minister said before: "There's a concern about compensation costs." We've got to look at it and "the number of people involved in administration. There's a whole series of questions to be asked."


I believe that British Columbians, also, have a whole lot of questions to be asked, and hopefully, it will come out during the minister's review.


But my question is: does the $171.9 million go to any of the compensation levels for the management at B.C. Ferries?


Hon. S. Bond: We continue to return to the basic difference. We believe that B.C. Ferries operates as an independent company, so it means that the Minister of Transportation is not involved in the day-to-day management of B.C. Ferries.


[1525]

What we are involved in is procurement. We actually purchase a service. It's called the minor routes, and we purchase that service from an independent company. It's exactly the same as when we procure service when we're building the Port Mann bridge, and we procure that service from Kiewit.


We are not involved in the oversight of their board. We're not involved in the oversight of their compensation. We purchase or procure service. That's exactly what we do, and that's the relationship.


Having said that, the Ferry Authority is in place to have oversight over the board. So there is accountability of the board through the Ferry Authority.


The member is also correct. We are reviewing a number of the issues that the member has brought to the table today, and we await that work. We will be asking a series of questions and have asked the comptroller general to look at a series of those issues. But B.C. Ferries
[ Page 1088 ]
is an independent company. We are not involved in the oversight of the board.


G. Coons: The minister talks about the authority having control over the board. But the authority and the board are basically made up of the same members, so it's somebody having authority over themselves on the other board. It's a real mess, I believe, and the original B.C. members of the board were appointed by the government back in 2003.


Again, as we move on…. The minister talked about the review. I just have a question about the review. I understood about the TransLink review not being in the possession of the minister. Is the review on B.C. Ferries in the possession of the minister or any ministry like the Finance Ministry, or is it still in the comptroller general's office?


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the review has been done simultaneously. We asked the comptroller general to look at both entities. As I said to the member opposite yesterday, she has completed the review part of her work — the work where she does the homework.


She is compiling her report, and it's my understanding that the government has not received that report. I certainly have not, and it's my understanding that the government has not.


G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I look forward to that report.


Just again, one of the reasons the report is looking at compensation…. When we — collective we, including the minister and her staff — found out that the CEO, David Hahn, made over a million dollars, it was pretty shocking. Not only that, but the other four vice-presidents made another close to $2 million. So the five top management positions make more than $3 million.


It's not the salary. It's the bonuses. They're given, or at least the CEO is given, a 55 percent long-term bonus and a 55 percent short-term bonus. So the CEO gets 110 percent bonus on top of his salary, which is the significant part of that.


It says in this last report that he did not get his full bonus because the financial performance targets were not being met. Does the minister know if the CEO got his bonus during 2006 when the Queen of the North sank?


[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this is a question not related directly to Vote 42. In fact, B.C. Ferries would be in the best position to address that answer.


The Chair: Member, if I can remind you to direct the question to Vote 42 and the budget estimates for 2009-10.


G. Coons: Thank you, Chair.


Again, the minister puts me off to B.C. Ferries, but we can't get that information because they're exempt from freedom of information. So it's pretty hard to get that information, and I guess the minister doesn't have that either.


When we are sending over $172 million from the Treasury Board over here to B.C. Ferries through a service contract, I was wondering if any of that money is spent towards advertising — for example, the $400,000 that goes to advertising at B.C. Place Stadium during Canuck games.


Hon. S. Bond: The $172 million is the procurement of service on the minor routes. It is in our service contract, and we audit against that contract for the services that we have procured.


G. Coons: I just have a question about some of the market opportunities that B.C. Ferries is pursuing. Again, it's a whole mishmash of legal entities that we're under with B.C. Ferries. I have a concern when they start going into their Pacific Marine Ventures Inc., which is to pursue strategy business opportunities related to commercial traffic tourism and terminal management.


Does the minister know if there's any cost or board of directors for PMV Inc.?


[D. Hayer in the chair.]


Hon. S. Bond: I know this may be frustrating for the member opposite. I can only answer the question accurately. This is not within the scope of Vote 42. I'm not able to answer those questions. B.C. Ferries is an independent company.


The Chair: Member, I will remind you at this time please direct your questions to Vote 42. Thank you, Member.


G. Coons: Thank you. We're trying to do that, and sometimes it's frustrating.


But when we start looking…. Again, I have to relate to the $172 million that we see going into B.C. Ferries when their revenues are going down and their expenses are going up. The last three months they lost money. They lost $3.6 million for net earnings, and it's fairly significant that British Columbians wonder if any of that $172 million is going to other initiatives put forward by B.C. Ferries.


If we start looking at the operations centre — a $9 million operations security centre in Victoria…. As we move forward with fares and fare increases and service cuts, I'm wondering if the minister sees the need for B.C. Ferries to spend $9 million on an operations centre for security and have nine management running the place.


[1535]
[ Page 1089 ]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the small part of B.C. Ferries that the provincial government is actually responsible for is the $172 million that is invested in a service contract to purchase service on the minor routes. In fact, we pay $172 million, and we audit to ensure that we get $172 million worth of service on the minor routes. That's the relationship and scope of Vote 42. The other activities of B.C. Ferries would be considered by the member opposite as any other independent company.


G. Coons: The minister said that the audit…. When was the last audit done, and is it public?


Hon. S. Bond: We receive quarterly reports, and those reports indicate to us the service levels that would accrue against our service contract of $172 million.


G. Coons: Okay, so it's not really an audit. You just get the reports from B.C. Ferries and go from there — what their information dictates. Has the minister, over the last six years, since the inception of B.C. Ferries, done any value-for-money audits?


Hon. S. Bond: I want to begin by saying that, first of all, this ministry in government actually has an extraordinary reputation of impeccable service, of actually delivering projects that are extraordinary across British Columbia. The relationship with B.C. Ferries is no different than it would be with any other contract that we actually monitor.


We don't simply receive a report four times a year and assume that it is the end of the report. In fact, we monitor rigorously these service levels that are provided. We have a process of due diligence that actually allows us to validate those numbers. The member opposite may want to debate whether or not that's an audit. But I can assure you there is a rigorous evaluation and monitoring of this service contract and any other contract that the government enters into through this ministry.


G. Coons: I'm sure the review that we're looking forward to on B.C. Ferries will basically be a rigorous audit of what's going on, especially when we look at management increasing 67 percent since 2001, a 15 percent decrease in workers, management salaries at $3 million to $4 million and the board of directors with their hefty pay increases, where the minister at the time said he had no option of requesting that they be reduced.


[1540]

The price tag for advertising, $400,000. The new tourism centre in downtown Vancouver — a 2,700-square-foot facility with an unknown staffing, no prescribed mandate and an unknown price tag.


We start looking at these extensions of our marine highway, and it's a major concern. Just one concern that I've had — and it's a concern in Delta — and that's with the Pacific Marine Ventures getting into…. This is from a B.C. Ferries memo: It's going to "grow its share of the market and movements of goods between the mainland and Vancouver Island. It's formed commercial services, Pacific Marine Ventures, and its mandate is to offer commercial customers more responsive, value-added service," which is drop-off trailers.


One of the companies, Seaspan, has a major problem when B.C. Ferries is in competition with them. I may not have a big problem with competition, but I do have a problem if some of the companies that move dangerous goods go out of business around the Delta area, and B.C. Ferries has to start transferring dangerous goods.


Will the minister ensure ferry passengers and crew and British Columbians that B.C. Ferries will not take on the dangerous cargo goods if they somehow become the main partner in the drop transport business?


Hon. S. Bond: Again, the business decisions that B.C. Ferries makes as an independent company are outside of the scope of vote 42.


Having said that, to the member opposite, I would like to remind him that B.C. Ferries is regulated by the federal government in terms of safety and the carriage of goods and people. There are absolutely rigorous guidelines in place. In fact, the issue that is foremost there is public safety.


G. Coons: Has the minister had any discussions with B.C. Ferries on this issue and the transportation of dangerous goods?


Hon. S. Bond: No, I have not had discussions with B.C. Ferries about the carriage of goods or people. I am confident that they abide by the regulations provided by the federal government in terms of safety and the rigorous guidelines that are expected of them.


G. Coons: Yes. We, somewhat, over the years, have had this discussion ever since the Queen of the North sank. We've requested a public inquiry into the sinking. Even though we've had a TSB report, we still don't know what happened — not only in the minutes of the accident or the weeks ahead, the months ahead or the years leading up to the sinking of the Queen of the North.


The previous minister had said that there's an ongoing RCMP investigation and so we don't want to do a public investigation. I'm not too sure if there's still one going on. I've requested…. I'm still getting that information.


[1545]

But if there is an ongoing RCMP investigation, it would be under Bill C-45. That deals with the federal safety that the minister brought up, and it deals with the criminal liability of organizations, including corporations and unions. It applies to Crown corporations and agents of the Crown.

[ Page 1090 ]

When we do talk about safety under Bill C-45…. People may know it as, I think, the Westray mine act. Management and other people knew that there were concerns, and there were criminal charges because they did not use due diligence.


I know there have been letters to the previous minister about the issues of dangerous cargo. I would suggest that if there is a concern about safety, it would fall under Bill C-45 — ensuring that it doesn't happen to you and that you do your due diligence, as the company has to and as the union has to and as all workers have to, but as the sole shareholder, even though non-voting, that you are the ultimate person responsible for what goes on with B.C. Ferries and all safety aspects.


I would suggest that your staff follow up on the concerns about dangerous cargo.


I just have a couple more questions, and I believe we can move on. I did get into an audit or something, but I'm just wondering if there are any criteria that the minister or the ministry use to evaluate B.C. Ferries as far as value for money or achieving the objectives of the Coastal Ferry Act.


Hon. S. Bond: We are trying very desperately here to figure out the answer to the question, but in fact, we don't know what the question actually means. If the member opposite could provide my staff and me with some clarity and if the member opposite also could figure out how it relates directly to Vote 42, that would be most helpful. We want to be indulgent and sincere in these answers. We literally cannot figure out how that's related to this vote.


The Chair: Member, I would request that you focus on Vote 42 rather than legislation at this time.


G. Coons: Okay.


I'll clarify that for the minister and her staff. Under the Auditor General's report, they talked about the mechanisms to hold to account B.C. Ferries and its board of directors for the money that comes to them from the government, the $172 million from Vote 42.


Basically, the report says: "None of these mechanisms, however, entirely replace the ability of the shareholders of the company to hold the board of directors responsible for its performance. For that reason, we conclude that although the risk is mitigated, it's not eliminated." That's the financial risk of B.C. Ferries.


This is the Auditor General: "We believe that the government should monitor B.C. Ferries' performance in relation to the government's objectives so that any problems can be identified and appropriate action determined at an early stage."


They recommended in their report, I'm sure the minister realizes, that the government — and this is a recommendation — "establish criteria for evaluating how well the coastal ferry system is achieving the objectives of the transformation and conduct evaluations of that performance at least once…every performance term in order to determine when or if changes to the Coastal Ferry Act should be made." That was in 2006.


The response from the ministry to this — and I'm not too sure of the date — in October 2007 says that the ministry will "consider increasing information provided in its annual service plan report." Here we are, just about two years later.


[1550]

The ministry response was not that. That was for the other one. The ministry response says that it will consider the most effective process to implement evaluation of how well the coastal ferry system is achieving the objectives of transformation.


That's why I'm wondering if there are established criteria that were recommended by the Auditor General and whether or not they are using any criteria to determine if the Coastal Ferry Act is achieving its objectives.


Hon. S. Bond: I think that perhaps the best way to describe the catalyst for the review that we have initiated is in response to that very suggestion by the Auditor General — the suggestion that there be periodic review, the opportunity to take a look at issues like that. That's exactly what we've determined is an important step, and that's what we did.


G. Coons: I'm pleased to hear that.


I just have one question about infrastructure funding, but it involves ferry terminals. Perhaps the minister could answer this.


Under the latest infrastructure funding that went out, it looked at lots of money going out to provincial assets and, basically, highways that had a provincial-federal sharing of the money. Under "Provincial assets," it says "Ferries and other." 


It's actually the sewage treatment pump-ashore work that needs to be done at, it looks like, about seven or eight terminals, worth about $8 million or $9 million. I'm just wondering why the ministry is not funding its share of it and putting it on to B.C. Ferries to ensure that the sewage pump-ashore systems are in place. As the minister knows, that will just impact fares to those that depend on the ferries in ferry-dependent communities.


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, these costs were already within B.C. Ferries' program. So when we alleviate that cost, it actually ultimately alleviates additional cost to the user.


[1555]

G. Coons: Okay. In other words, the federal government is putting in half of the money, and B.C. Ferries is putting in the other half, and the provincial government
[ Page 1091 ]
is not putting any money into the sewage treatment plants on the ferry terminals.


Hon. S. Bond: That is accurate. The good news is that these are 50-cent dollars for infrastructure.


G. Coons: It may be 50-cent dollars for infrastructure, but it's probably a huge percentage increase for ferry users. I don't know if this minister or the staff has looked at the ferry increases for next year on the north coast, but if you go on line, as the minister has said that people should do, the fare increases are up to 13 percent for ferry users on the north coast.


I'm just wondering if, under the price cap…. The price cap is 7.5 percent. Does the minister think that a 13 percent fare increase for the northern routes is a fair price?


Hon. S. Bond: I really feel like I want to correct the member opposite's assumptions about the infrastructure dollars, so I'll walk through it one more time. B.C. Ferries would have been expected to pay 100 percent of the cost. Because we have a great partnership with the federal government, they are actually providing 50 cents out of every dollar for those infrastructure projects that would have been included in B.C. Ferries' budgets.


So the member's assumptions are incorrect. With the 50-cent dollars, there's a very high likelihood that that would alleviate additional costs being passed on to the ferry users. It's a very good news story, and we appreciate the connections that we have with the federal government to allow those partnerships.


In terms of the rates that the member opposite referred to, the ferry commissioner regulates those fares and, certainly, anything that is above the price cap. The ferry commissioner is responsible for that regulation.


G. Coons: Yeah, and over the six years on the major routes, fares have gone up about 138 percent. On the minor routes, it's gone up about 152 percent. Ridership is going down.


This government, in their press releases that they did back in 2003, promised stable rates and reliable service. What we're seeing now are service cutbacks, fares that are out of control and — on the north coast, as I just mentioned — going up 13 percent, which is significant.


[1600]

I have had many constituents who just travelled the ferries come to me and say they can't afford to travel the ferries anymore, and they're locals. They go on there, and it costs $1,100 or $1,200 for a trip down with their two kids and a car. There's a real concern.


I acknowledge the minister putting in $20 million last year and supplementing other routes. We saw the benefits to that. We saw ridership increase significantly, as the minister said, along with the CoastSaver. Is the minister considering any increase in the subsidy to ensure that tourism, to ensure that businesses, to ensure that coastal residents have affordable fares and can travel and get the essential service that they need?


This government, whatever government it was, for the last 40 years had a social and economic contract with those in ferry-dependent communities. I'm wondering if the minister is going to commit to that and subsidize so that fares are not running out of control.


Hon. S. Bond: I think in any debate it's important that while we may want to talk about the challenges that are faced, it's also incumbent upon us to actually recognize success when it happens.


I think it's very unfortunate when the work of B.C. Ferries is characterized completely negatively. There is no doubt that there has been improved customer satisfaction, and our results show us that. We've also seen more reliable service in terms of on-time travel.


We have terminal improvements, and we have fleet expansions. In fact, we have one of the most outstanding ferry services in the world. I think we need to remember that from time to time.


I do want to point out, for the member opposite, our track record when it comes to funding for B.C. Ferries. Since 2003 we've contributed over $850 million in ferry service support to coastal communities. This year alone the support that B.C. Ferries will receive for those coastal community minor routes is expected to be, as we've been discussing, $172 million. That is more taxpayer funding than has ever been provided before.


If we're going to talk about fare increases, I need to remind the member opposite that if we go back and look at the Crown corporation model versus the current model, the ferry fares increased by a much greater margin than they did under the previous model. It is important that we make sure that the record contains both the positive things that B.C. Ferries has done and some of the challenges they're facing.


The member opposite well knows, and we discussed this yesterday, that ridership is not simply down on the ferries. The member opposite and I travel frequently on airlines. We travel by a variety of modes of transportation. All of those providers are suffering in terms of the impact of the global economic recession that we're facing. So it's not simply about fares.


Do fares need to be considered? Of course they do. But it needs to be done in the context of a variety of other circumstances.


G. Coons: I would challenge the minister on her facts and data on fare increases during a six-year period previously as a Crown corporation and the six years that we've had now, especially when there is another 13 percent going on. Now we're looking at the CEO saying that for the HST, they're going to have to ask for another fare
[ Page 1092 ]
increase. I can picture, perhaps, a 20 percent increase on the northern routes if that comes to pass.


Yes, I do have to acknowledge, and I did yesterday, that we have one of the best ferry systems in the world. It has provided social and economic benefits to all parts of the province with a safe, reliable and affordable service. The key word there is "affordable." The promise from this government back in 2003 was stable rates, and we're far from stable rates, I would say.


[1605]

If we had followed the Coastal Ferry Act and had done the 2 percent to 4 percent fare increases over the years…. But again, there have been significant fuel surcharges and other costs downloaded onto ferry users.


My second-to-last comment is this. The minister talked about challenges. Under section 69 of the Coastal Ferry Act there's a huge challenge — I know the minister and staff are aware of this — and that's the alternate service providers that B.C. Ferries is mandated to go out and search for.


It's been, as we all know and when we talk with management of B.C. Ferries…. It's impossible, in the monopoly frame that B.C. Ferries is under, to go out and find somebody that wants to operate a ferry service and has to bring in their own vessels and lease or rent the docks. It's impossible.


I'm wondering if the minister, in her discussions with B.C. Ferries, has any idea if section 69 of the Coastal Ferry Act is going to be eliminated.


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the member opposite is correct. The ferry commissioner did note that B.C. Ferries had more work to do when it came to alternate service providers, and that work continues. Part of the work that B.C. Ferries does is to look for that alternate service delivery, but it also needs to look at whether or not that's more cost-effective.


Again, one of the things that the Finance Minister has asked the comptroller general to do is to look at some of those very issues — at governance, at delivery, at how we balance the need for affordability against the challenging economic circumstances and the type of delivery that we're faced with in this sector.


The review, as the member opposite knows, is pending, and a number of these issues are being contemplated by the comptroller general.


G. Coons: In our discussions with B.C. Ferries they have said it's costing them millions of dollars over the years to try to keep up with section 69 — and for no concrete movement at all for finding private contractors. So I would hope that in the review that's done….


I'm just going to conclude here and pass it on. But I would say that when we look at where we are with B.C. Ferries…. As I said, it's an essential service. The Auditor General indicated it's an essential service. It provides the social and economic driver to our communities on the coast.


Again, to do your due diligence, we have to look at the finances and where we're headed and look at trends with B.C. Ferries. From the last annual report, in the last quarter report and the business plans of B.C. Ferries there's a clear warning that there are financial storms ahead.


My interpretation of the review coming up is that the minister came in and realized that the model they had mandated in this province to privatize our marine highway is not working. Their legislation has failed, and it needs a complete revamping. The Auditor General said it was a hybrid model that had never been tested. So I'm pleased that the minister is moving towards this.


This provincially owned private corporation is running out of money. It's running out of cash. It's maximized its debt. It's raised its fares to a point where 5 percent of its customers are lost every year, and the price of fuel is going up again.


[1610]

But what's really scary is that the government was warned of this. The fee-for-service annually that they pay to the company…. That traffic — in the, I think, 20- or 25-year plan — was supposed to raise by 25 percent by 2018, and the price of fuel would not exceed 41 cents per litre. The cost of renewing the fleet would be about a billion dollars.


The government was warned that if these assumptions didn't pan out, then the ministry and the government could face an additional billion dollars of debt. Now six years later this is what has happened.


Even though we still have the best ferry service in the world and the most dedicated workers, it's time for revamping. We need to ensure that the coastal communities have that reliable, affordable and safe service, and we have seen that in the past years with the ferry advisory committee chairs doing their presentations to the ministry and to B.C. Ferries and to the UBCM, where they're putting forward motions and resolutions to have strategies that work for coastal communities and to maintain that essential service.


On that, I'll pass it off, unless the minister has any comments.


Hon. S. Bond: I certainly appreciate the member opposite's passion and concern for the coastal ferries. I think that's an important part of the job that the member opposite does to represent his constituents, and I think that's why we're here.


I do want to just point out that we are awaiting a report that will review the status of B.C. Ferries. It's in no way intended to imply that the model needs a complete overhaul. It is prudent management to actually go back and take a look after six years. Are there things that we could do better? Are there things that B.C. Ferries
[ Page 1093 ]
can do better? I think that's just good management practice, and I think that the taxpayers expect that of us.


I do want to point out that B.C. Ferries is one of the largest and most successful ferry operators in the world. Let me, just for the record, before we move on to the next member…. You know, this is an organization that has basically done an incredible job over the last number of years.


We've seen seven new ships that were built and delivered in the last three years on time and on budget; all major terminals reconfigured and upgraded. Service reliability has significantly improved in the last six years — in fact, customer service ratings in the high 86 percent range.


Anyone sitting around this table in this House would be delighted to have an 86 percent rating from any of our constituents at any given point in time. So I can tell you that the people who actually make use of B.C. Ferry services are extremely satisfied, and that's been a major transformation.


So the review is about looking at how we can do things better — are we getting best value for the dollars that are being invested in both TransLink and in B.C. Ferries? — and I think that's a prudent thing to do. So we await that report, and I'm sure the member opposite will have comments to make once that report is presented to government.


V. Huntington: I do have a problem with the way in which B.C. Ferries is competing with Seaspan Intermodal, and really the crux of my questions go to that concern. I'm primarily concerned in that the government has not regulated the manner in which B.C. Ferries can enter the marketplace.


The ferry commissioner is charged with ensuring that B.C. Ferries engages in a fair and competitive process, which in the private sector means a level playing field. Seaspan Coastal Intermodal is nearing 100 years old, and as a member in the private sector, it pays property taxes. It pays its corporate income taxes. It has a large payroll. It creates wealth, and it is a very major component of the economy, especially in Delta South. They buy their own land, and they build their own infrastructure.


They are now being forced to compete with a corporate entity that — I agree with the minister — has made wonderful strides in the last number of years, and I am pleased to see that there is a continued review into its corporate management.


[1615]

However, the new B.C. Ferries did not have to pay for or build its terminal infrastructures. It pays a preferential property tax. I don't believe that it pays a corporate income tax. It doesn't have to pay for its land as the new structure. It offers wages that the private sector is unable to compete with. It is adapting existing public equipment. It charges trailers less per foot than it charges the travelling public. It offers rebates on drop trailers, and the list can go on and on.


I wonder if the minister would consider in her review whether she would consider amendments to the ferry commissioner's responsibilities to enable the commissioner to have the authority to set rate floors as well as cap caps.


Hon. S. Bond: I really appreciate the thoughtful question, because the service contract does specifically relate to the minor routes. We do believe it's important for there to be a fair mechanism in place, a fair opportunity for a competitive process in this circumstance.


So it's fair to say that…. In fact, I am confident that the comptroller general will consider the playing field in the work that she is doing. We'll wait to see what her recommendations or response might be after she does that work.


I appreciate the concerns expressed. Again, I think it is important for us to look at that, but I do need to be clear that the $172 million is designated specifically for the minor routes. I do appreciate the question, and the comptroller general, I am certain, will be considering that in her recommendations.


V. Huntington: May I thank the minister.


Yes, I recognize that the subsidy is for the minor routes. But in the overall corporate responsibility it does enable the corporation to concentrate its profits on a single sector. The sector itself is so…. The playing field is so unlevel in terms of the responsibilities that the corporation has, compared to that of the private sector, that I would hope that the minister is directing the…. I'm assuming that there are terms of reference to the review and that they would include consideration of this issue.


Hon. S. Bond: In fact we did not specifically direct the comptroller general, actually, to look at that issue. We didn't want to limit or provide any limitations to her review. I am fairly confident that in the work that she does, she certainly will have a look at the issue. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed and, certainly, I am fairly confident that in the scope of her review she would have considered that issue.


[1620]

V. Huntington: I am very pleased to hear that, and I will accept that there probably is an understanding that it be undertaken.


I would ask if the minister is going to continue her dialogue with the industry on this issue. It's extremely important to them.


Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely. I should tell the member opposite that I have met with the members of the industry, and I'm completely willing to continue to have that
[ Page 1094 ]
discussion. We certainly want to be able to hear their concerns and to have some dialogue about that, and I absolutely would commit to continuing that discussion.


H. Bains: Now we can move to other parts of the questioning. In Vote 42 I would like to draw the minister's attention to the line item under the minister's office. If I could ask the minister…. In February the minister's service plan estimated that over the next three years the ministry would stay at 1,469 FTEs. I'd like to ask the minister if that number continues on or if there is any change.


Hon. S. Bond: We expect it to be roughly the same.


H. Bains: Then, again, we have a number of line items here under Vote 42, and I would…. It's related to how they are actually doing their duties, when we are looking at dealing with all different departments that the ministry covers. For example, how many ministry staff people are dedicated and responsible for the reduction of greenhouse gas for the transportation sector?


Hon. S. Bond: I am sure the member opposite can appreciate that we have an incredibly hard-working ministry, and many people in it have a variety of responsibilities.


So probably the most accurate way we can describe this is that we believe there are about six people who might have a designated responsibility for a sort of climate change, greenhouse gas emission agenda, but there are other individuals where a component of their job would also relate to that agenda item.


[1625]

H. Bains: I appreciate that answer, but there might be a way to put FTEs together, because there are a few who may have other roles, and there are other people who are doing other duties, but they also come and participate.


So is there a number of FTEs, put together, for this particular area?


Hon. S. Bond: Actually, my deputy gives me a good example of why it's complex. We have not calculated FTEs in that way. A great example of that, which my deputy gave me, was that a person who deals with ports might have 20 percent of their role. So in fact, we haven't calculated FTEs in that way — based on a specific greenhouse gas reduction emission strategy. There are six people that we would suggest are likely fully dedicated to it and then a number of other areas with greater or lesser parts of their jobs.


H. Bains: Then maybe I could move on to the same question about how many staff people are dedicated and responsible for overseeing Gateway-related projects.


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the number of people currently related to the Gateway project would be 35. I should tell the member opposite that that fluctuates. If we're doing a planning process, we may bring additional people in at a peak period. But currently we estimate 35.


H. Bains: Perhaps I could go into the area of the ministry staff that would be dedicated and responsible for overseeing B.C. Transit–related projects and services.


Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons that this is not simply "look it up, and here's the list" is one of the things that is very innovative about this ministry, having been in four. There is a very small core group that is dedicated to particular tasks. In fact, often they have two or three parts of their job that actually equate to a full-time equivalent. So we estimate seven or eight people that would be related specifically to B.C. Transit as opposed to public transit. This is just simply B.C. Transit.


[1630]

H. Bains: I do appreciate that, Minister. I knew when I was putting these questions together that there would be challenges because there are people interrelated in two different jobs.


I will give you two or three more, and maybe you could give them all at one time. Perhaps you could also give me an answer to how many staff people are dedicated to overseeing the ministry's partnership with the Evergreen line, Canada Line.


[D. Horne in the chair.]


Perhaps she could also answer: people who are dedicated and responsible for TransLink-related projects and services….


Hon. S. Bond: We've worked well together, and we've actually got the answers for the member opposite, all three of them.


The Evergreen line has 12 dedicated staff members. The Canada Line actually has no dedicated staff members. If you were to take parts of people's jobs, we would come up with perhaps one FTE. So we do not have a dedicated staff person for that. If you look at TransLink, we would…. And again, there's a bit of flexibility here between B.C. Transit and TransLink, but in essence the number we would attach to TransLink is five.


H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could also give me numbers on — there might be some number attached to it — Transportation Investment Corp and Transportation Financing Authority.


Hon. S. Bond: There are no dedicated employees in the TFA, and in the Transportation Investment Corp,
[ Page 1095 ]
while they are not ministry people — so they're not included in that top number — there are 11.


[1635]

H. Bains: When I was looking at the responsibilities of the minister and the minister's staff, and also I came across…. B.C. Rail also reports on a regular basis to the minister's office. Can the minister answer that question if that is in fact correct?


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, B.C. Rail Properties reports to the board of B.C. Rail.


H. Bains: I would just remind the minister. Looking at B.C. Rail's 2008 annual report, on page 6 where it talks about performance measures — "Report on status of CN Rail Revitalization Agreement" — it talks about what the targets were. Targets were to report quarterly to the board and minister. And actually, 2008 was reported quarterly to the board and minister. In 2009, the same thing — reported quarterly to the board and minister.


If the minister could correct that — that the minister does get the quarterly reports.


Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, I was correct. B.C. Rail Properties actually reports to the board of B.C. Rail. There is a requirement with the B.C. Rail revitalization agreement that they…. So that piece, they are required to report to the minister.


H. Bains: There's another area here we'll talk about: "Brief minister on public issue involving Kinder Morgan operation under operating lease agreement." Then it goes on to say that the target is to respond within 48 hours of event or request.


Their actual 2008 and 2009 is: "Responded within 48 hours of the event or request." Is that correct?


[1640]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things the member opposite, I'm sure, is aware of is that as the minister and the shareholder we actually issue a shareholder letter of expectation. In fact, those are public documents, so the reporting out is a factual process. It's very straightforward. The letter sets out the expectation. It is a public document, and in the case of the criteria that the member opposite asked about, yes, that was met.


H. Bains: So out of these 1,469 FTEs, is there an FTE assigned — or is there any employee assigned — to deal with B.C. Rail?


Hon. S. Bond: One of our ADMs deals with B.C. Rail, but there are several other employees who have rail in general as part of the work that they do.


H. Bains: Just coming back to the line item under salaries. When I'm looking at Vote 42 for this fiscal year, we're looking at $114,911,000. Can the minister explain: is that for all of those 1,469 FTEs and including…? I can also see the minister's office has $439,000 allocated into the salaries there as well. So between the two items, is $114,911,000 the total salary of all those 1,469 employees?


[1645]

Hon. S. Bond: The total that the member opposite referred to, the $114 million, is actually the total compensation and benefits for Ministry of Transportation employees and the minister's office.


H. Bains: If I could move to the minister's office. Just the minister's office — it's listed as $548,000 for this fiscal year compared to $547,000 for the previous year. Can the minister do the comparison? How does that reflect as far as the FTEs this year versus last year?


Hon. S. Bond: The amount that the member opposite points out, $547,000 versus $548,000, basically represents the entire cost of the minister's office. That's everything. That includes travel. Basically, there is very little change in terms of one year over the next. We're not seeing a change in any major way.


H. Bains: Does that reflect…? You must have some salary component to that, salary and benefits. Can the minister give us the number of employees who would be drawing these salaries and benefits?


Hon. S. Bond: The actual cost of salaries and benefits is $439,000. Certainly, staffing ebbs and flows, but at the current time we have four staff in the minister's office.


H. Bains: How does that compare to the previous year?


[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: Sorry, to the member opposite. We don't have the specifics in terms of the actual budget for salaries. I'm told by my financial officer, though, that it was roughly the same.


H. Bains: I was actually interested in number of employees, rather than…. I think the total package is listed here at $547,000, as we mentioned earlier, but I was more interested to know how many employees. You said this year it's four. How many were there before, previous to this year?


Hon. S. Bond: Again, it was roughly the same. There was some variation in the numbers in the office, but it was either four or five. There was some fluctuation there.

[ Page 1096 ]

H. Bains: Then the minister mentioned that the total $548,000 includes travel as well. So my question is: when we talk about travel, does that include the travel costs for the minister and these four employees that the minister mentioned?


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is the minister's office. It includes travel for staff, and certainly, the minister's travel is included there as well.


H. Bains: I guess I was just trying to differentiate minister-wise. When you as an MLA or as minister travel to your constituency or come to the Legislature building here, is that part of this or is that a separate line item?


[1655]

Hon. S. Bond: With the member's indulgence, we'll come back and give a better answer to this. I want to be clear before I'm on the record, and we're having a bit of uncertainty about what portion is MLA travel.


As you can imagine, it's pretty complicated when you're a minister and an MLA. Certainly, there's ministerial travel, and there's also an MLA component. We'll try to get a specific answer to that so that I am clear on the record.


H. Bains: Could we get that information within…? Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that.


Now can I move on to the area for discretionary spending as listed under the service plans and covered by Vote 42? But before I get into the discretionary spending in this budget, maybe I could ask the minister this question: has the discretionary spending increased significantly in this part of the budget, or could the minister outline where the discretionary spending has been cut?


Hon. S. Bond: Like every ministry in government, we are looking to be as efficient as possible and ensuring that we are reducing costs where they're discretionary as much as we possibly can.


We have a number of areas where we're looking at reductions. Some of them would be public servant travel, management services, professional services, office and business expenses, statutory advertising, utilities, materials, supplies, operating equipment and vehicles. So there's a very long list of areas where we are working very hard to be part of the reductions that government has asked for across every single ministry.


H. Bains: If I look at Vote 42 and the chart here, the way I see it, under public servant travel it looks like it has increased by $4.6 million. When you look at some of the different areas of that…. So $2.7 million in transportation and infrastructure improvement, $113,000 in public transportation, $1.7 million in highway operation, $26,000 in corporate services — for a total of $4.6 million.


[1700]

The minister is saying that they have cut, but since February to September this year it has gone up by $4.6 million. How can the minister explain that?


Hon. S. Bond: We have to look at this from two perspectives. One of the things that we are monitoring rigorously is actually looking at discretionary travel. So in fact, there is a reduction and will continue to be a reduction and monitoring in discretionary travel related to operations.


What has increased, though, is the budget related for travel to the capital projects. Because of the infrastructure stimulus projects and the accelerated capital that we are putting in place all across British Columbia, we've had to see an increase in our travel to manage the capital program.


So while we're looking at reductions on the operations side in terms of travel, the actual management of our projects is increasing because of the number of projects we have underway or soon to be underway.


H. Bains: But the fact remains that if I do the comparison between the February budget that was submitted and Vote 42, which we have before us, the difference is $4.6 million compared to February. So it has gone up. That's what I'd like to ask the minister — if that is correct.


Hon. S. Bond: That is correct. As I explained to the member opposite, the rationale for that…. We were outrageously successful in our partnership with the federal government, and as a result of that, we have over 400 projects across government. Actually, the total is probably near 600 now. So in essence, there's an accelerated capital project right across government.


But in our ministry we're seeing accelerated capital projects. Our staff are required around the province. So we're seeing operational travel drop but travel associated with the success of our partnership with the federal government related to the capital side increase.


H. Bains: Perhaps the minister can provide us with the difference between the operations side of the travel compared to the capital side of the travel.


[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: Where we expect to realize savings is in travel that's related to things like conferences, where we do business meetings. I actually do a number of meetings with my staff by teleconference. I don't have them travel to Prince George, or I travel back here. We actually do our briefing sessions using technology. We also use a number of other pieces of technology to reduce our
[ Page 1097 ]
physical travel. Those are the kinds of travel savings that we're looking at.


On the other side of the coin, and where we are seeing an increase, is basically how we administer contracts and make sure that projects across British Columbia are built safely and properly. It includes things like construction inspections, site condition assessments and quality assurance on projects.


As the member opposite can imagine, as we increase the number of projects, we have to increase the amount of monitoring and connectivity we have with those projects. So yes, the budget does show an increase. It's based on the capital side and not on the operations of either the executive team or the administration. It is related specifically to capital project quality assurance and the other things that I've mentioned.


H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. How much, actually, was the reduction in the operations side of the travel?


Hon. S. Bond: Our target number that we are working toward is 25 percent.


[1710]

H. Bains: The minister mentioned that the capital side of the travel increased as the projects increased. Can the minister advise the House what the extra projects were and what the dollar value is of those projects where this extra travel was required as a capital travel over the last year?


Hon. S. Bond: I am sure that the member opposite will not want me to read the entire list, because we are in unprecedented circumstances with the partnerships. I can tell the member opposite that the total would be in excess of $500 million, so in excess of half a billion dollars' worth of new projects.


Let me give the member some examples of that. We would have projects like the Gott Creek Bridge in Lillooet; the Falkland Bridge in Falkland; the Enderby intersection, which is, obviously, in Enderby; the Cody Road to Australian, in Quesnel; the Stormy Road North in 100 Mile; the Stone Creek Bridge in Prince George; Walker Hill, Kelowna. The list goes on and on.


Because we have been involved with the stimulus fund with our federal partners, we have a massive number of projects either underway or beginning, right across the province. The total amount of those projects is in excess of $500 million, and our staff is required to do the necessary due diligence and work that I referenced in my earlier answer.


H. Bains: My question was, I guess, the increase from the previous year. I understand that that's what the total projects are this year. Can the minister confirm whether those $500 million-plus are new projects? What is the increase over last year?


[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the challenges we have is that those are very large numbers. We're going to get them for the member opposite very quickly, as well as the answer to the salary question that he asked.


Let me just clarify that there is an ongoing capital program in the Ministry of Transportation, and the amount that I gave the member opposite was actually for new projects in addition to our ongoing capital program.


Since February of 2009 we've added, in addition to our regular capital program, an additional half-billion dollars' worth of projects across the province. That's why the member is actually seeing an increase on the capital side for travel.


H. Bains: Yes, I would be interested to get that information, and I appreciate that.


My next question is along the same line. The professional services part of Vote 42, when you look at it, also increased by $93 million. Can the minister explain why and what those professional services were? What was the need for an increase of $93 million?


Hon. S. Bond: Could the member opposite just give us a bit of clarity as to where he's taking that number from, please?


H. Bains: If you look at the STOB 60, it shows — if you look at a couple of areas that I noticed — transportation infrastructure improvements, $66 million, and public transit increasing $25 million, for a total of $93 million. Can the minister explain what those professional services were?


[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: STOB 60 is about professional services contracts, but again, we have to keep in mind that the reason costs are increasing is because the number of projects is increasing.


What that category defines is actually things like design. If we have more projects, we require more design, so the cost goes up. We have field inspections, environmental inspections. It's basically all of the professional services in a contract that would be related to the delivery of capital projects.


I think the most important answer to all of these questions is that as you see the number of capital projects increase, you're going to see anticipated spending go up in areas like staff travel to manage those projects and professional services to actually deliver those projects.


H. Bains: So any of those professional services would include projects such as the Evergreen line and the Gateway project — those two?

[ Page 1098 ]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. The professional services would definitely relate to…. There would be professional services costs related to Evergreen and Gateway — with the exception of the Port Mann, of course, because the Port Mann is being delivered through the Transportation Investment Corp. That would include the South Fraser perimeter road and the Pitt River Bridge.


H. Bains: Would that also include other TransLink-related projects?


Hon. S. Bond: It does not include TransLink-funded projects.


H. Bains: That could be a tricky answer. I just want to confirm. I wasn't asking whether it was TransLink-funded projects. I asked about any TransLink-related projects that the ministry will incur any costs for when it comes to the professional services, public travel, etc.


[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: It wasn't at all meant to be a tricky answer. We're trying to sort out, basically, what the member was referring to in terms of the TransLink delivery, because we do it in different ways. For projects that are being delivered on our right-of-way, professional services would be included. Cost-shared projects that TransLink is actually delivering would not be included.


H. Bains: There's another area that the minister probably could answer some questions on where, in my view, the discretionary spending has increased. That is office and business expenses, which also has increased by $1.5 million.


Perhaps the minister could also…. Is the answer the same because the projects are increasing, and we're increasing in office and business expenses? This one talked about $791,000 in transportation and infrastructure improvement, $781,000 in highway operations and $100,000 in corporate services. Is that all related to the increase in projects?


Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite anticipated correctly. As projects go up, obviously we need additional professional services, but we also need additional support. So costs in this area…. There is an increase, and again, it would be related to things like project offices. It may also require field trailers, and it may even include things like porta-potties — whatever we need to make sure that we have support on the ground for the projects that are being built.


So yes, the answer is the same: more projects. Therefore, the budget is going up.


H. Bains: I will move on to a different area, but I must say that what we have seen here is contrary to the directive of the Minister of Finance. Since February the discretionary spending of this ministry has increased — as I mentioned, $4.6 million in the public servant travel, $93 million in professional services and $1.5 million in the office and business expenses. 


I think all of those are or can be considered as a discretionary area where the money can be saved, but that's where the direction is going. Let me ask another question along the same line. From any line item here of the budget, is the Premier's Open Skies Summit being funded from any of the line items here?


[1730]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]


Hon. S. Bond: Madam Chair, good afternoon.


First of all, I do want to go back to the member opposite's previous comments because we simply need to make it perfectly clear. We may choose or….


The label attached to these jobs may well be discretionary funding, but I can assure the member opposite that when we are building the most aggressive transportation plan in the history of British Columbia — and we have accelerated capital at unprecedented rates — we don't believe that discretionary funding includes things like appropriate planning and engineering and environmental assessments and making sure that we have porta-potties on the sites where people actually work. Those are not discretionary funds.


Yes, they are increasing because the amount of capital and investment is at an unprecedented level in the province of British Columbia. So we will, I can assure the member opposite, meet the target reduction that we expect, which is about 25 percent on the operations side, and our goal is to actually try to exceed that.


For the member opposite to suggest that we could reduce discretionary funding in areas like field services and environmental assessment and planning — that's simply not accurate related to the projects and the capital program that we're going to deliver.


In relation to the second question, Open Skies has actually been funded out of the transportation policy and planning budget line. The approximate cost of Open Skies — it was fully funded out of that particular…. We did have to net out fees because people were actually…. There were fees, etc. The cost will be approximately a hundred thousand dollars for Open Skies.


I can assure the member opposite that one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure and economic drivers that we have in British Columbia is related to airport expansions. We believe that pursuing an open skies policy with the federal government is absolutely critical to the future opportunities that are available in airports, both regionally and at YVR.

[ Page 1099 ]

H. Bains: Welcome, Madam Chair.


Thank you very much for answering my first question and answering the question that I didn't ask, which was the total cost. I do appreciate that. That was the next question, so thank you very much.


The next question is on Bike to Work Week. Can the minister tell this House how much the grant was last year and how much it will be this year?


[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: We'll get that information for the member opposite. I'm adding it to his list. I have two other ones that I'm hoping to clear off the decks before seven, so we'll add this to that list.


H. Bains: Perhaps we could, if you need the time to change the staff…. I want to go into B.C. Transit.


Interjections.


The Chair: I'm happy to oblige that, so the committee will recess for five minutes for a little refreshment break.


The committee recessed from 5:37 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.


[J. McIntyre in the chair.]


H. Bains: We would like to go into some of the questioning around B.C. Transit. I'm really glad to hear the member for Abbotsford-Mission being so entertained in the last couple of hours with our questioning and answering by the minister. I'm really, really happy because if we can make one person happy, that is a goal achieved, I think.


Coming back to B.C. Transit, I'd just like to say here that there seems to be a significant change from February until now in the way that the public transit portion of the operating budget is funded. In February it appears that B.C. Transit received a grant from the government's operating budget, and that was the end of things.


Now in this budget there's a $95 million operating cost and $197 million in government transfers, with $250 million coming in as external recoveries. The end result for the ministry's bottom line is the same, but what does this accounting change do for B.C. Transit or the ministry?


[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: Before we actually get down to the Q-and-A session, I want to introduce three of the representatives from B.C. Transit that are here today. They do a fantastic job in British Columbia, and we're happy to have them here to help us with the answers to these questions. Manuel Achadinha is the president and CEO. Tony Sharp is the CFO and VP of finance, and Graeme Masterton is the director of planning.


On that note, we're off to a great start. We have to ask the member opposite for clarity about that question, because we can't actually find a match for that with B.C. Transit's actual allocations. If the member opposite could give us some clarity, that would be most helpful as we start this section.


H. Bains: I think if you look at this budget, there is $95 million in the operating cost and $197 million in government transfers, with $250 million coming in as external recoveries. That's where it is. But what I was saying was that the end result and the bottom line for the ministry is the same. There seem to be some changes in accounting. My question was: how does that help the ministry at all?


Hon. S. Bond: We'd like the member opposite to give us a reference point to source that document for us, because it's not a number that's related to B.C. Transit. We need to have a better sense of where, actually, that information is.


H. Bains: Actually, I was going through my documents here trying to find that piece of document that I had with me to relate to this. It's not in here, but we will try to get that as well.


Now let me go to the next question. As far as the capital funds are concerned, what new capital funds are being invested in B.C. Transit?


Hon. S. Bond: We're very pleased to be able to tell the member opposite that, in fact, we're probably involved in the largest-ever capital plan expansion in B.C. Transit's history. It's approximately $167 million. A significant part of that is our hydrogen fuel cell project. We have approximately 115 replacement buses, and we're also expanding the number of buses. The order around that is probably about 80 buses. In addition to that, we're building a new transit facility in Whistler.


H. Bains: So that would be $167 million in capital investment. Was any operation money also provided to B.C. Transit, and how much?


[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: They do fine work at B.C. Transit. The government has actually increased the support to B.C. Transit by 34 percent in two years. The budget has moved from $52.3 million. This year our support will be $78.6 million.


H. Bains: This additional operation money — is that sufficient to operate the new investment in capital?


Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it is.


H. Bains: Can the minister explain what the financial breakdown is between capital dollars going to TransLink versus B.C. Transit?

[ Page 1100 ]

Hon. S. Bond: If you're looking at capital investment to TransLink, we're looking at the province's contribution, specifically at $22 million, but I need to point out to the member opposite that outside of that are things like highway upgrades for RapidBus — that's not included in the $22 million.


We also know that Evergreen is not included in that, and that would be in excess of $200 million over three years. So in fact, the $22 million is direct to transit-related items through TransLink, and the amount for B.C. Transit would be $99 million.


H. Bains: If I could go back to my first question — I found it. If you look under the total government transfers listed under…. If you go seven lines down from the top, there's $77,677,000 mentioned and then $2,000.


[1755]

That is in the February budget, but in September it talks about $197 million. But when you look at the total operating cost it talks about $96 million in September, but in February it talked about $282 million. When you combine these numbers, they are about the same, but how do you…? Why was it changed around?


Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite would not mind sharing the piece of paper with us so we could actually line it up with the document. We're having a great deal of difficulty. We'd love to answer the question. We're just not sure where that line is, so we'd appreciate that.


H. Bains: Maybe in the meantime I can ask you a next question. Last year when we were preparing the budget and what the budget document shows, the city of Nanaimo was promised additional hours of service. Can the minister advise what that was last year?


Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I know there were some adjustments made to the announcement that was made around additional hours of service for Nanaimo. But I do want to point out to the member opposite that in the initial request from B.C. Transit, Nanaimo actually asked for 5,000 hours of additional service. That's what they asked for.


Then in looking at projections across the province, B.C. Transit suggested they may be able to provide more than 5,000 hours. At the end of the day, when B.C. Transit was given an envelope to work within, they actually looked across the province of British Columbia and had to balance demand, and we saw increasing ridership numbers, at significant percentages, in various places across the province.


The decision was made to meet the requests that Nanaimo had, in fact, by providing the 5,000 hours, but it was less than the amount that had potentially been anticipated. I'm hoping I made that clear. It's hard to explain.


Basically, Nanaimo originally asked for 5,000 hours. They got 5,000 hours, but in between there, B.C. Transit suggested: "We may be able to do better than that." Balancing needs across the province, they were not able to provide any additional hours other than the 5,000 originally requested.


H. Bains: But I think the issue here is the promises made by this government prior to the election. More hours were promised, not only in Nanaimo but also the city of Kamloops. They were also promised 10,000 new hours, but they ended up getting…. I believe after the election they were told they would get only 4,000. The same thing goes for the city of Kelowna and other cities.


[H. Bloy in the chair.]


So I think that the question is: if it made business sense before the election, why didn't it make business sense after the election?


[1800]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we'll be very clear about this. We promised more hours; we delivered more hours. Let's look at the number of hours on the track record at B.C. Transit over the last two years. In fact, we've seen the largest expansion of public transit in the history of British Columbia. Over the last two years there have been an additional 250,000 hours of service that have been added across the province.


The great news is that people want to use public transit. The challenge we face is that we actually have to find a way to balance the demand with the resources we have. We are always oversubscribed in terms of the requests that we have.


Let's go back and look at both Nanaimo and Kamloops, specifically, because the member's brought those up. As I said originally, the Kamloops request originally was 5,000 hours. We delivered 5,000 hours. I have been very clear, also, about the fact that, yes, there had been discussion about more than 5,000 hours. We were not able to deliver that at the end of looking across the province.


In the case of Kamloops, Kamloops received an additional 4,000 hours. Again, I know that there's a significant degree of demand in Kamloops. In fact, we're doing a service review in Kamloops, and we're creating a master plan in Nanaimo.


So the fantastic news is that we have unprecedented investment and new hours being added all across the province. Is there more demand? Absolutely, and we're going to work to continue to increase hours of service over the next number of years.


H. Bains: But at the same token, if you look at Kamloops' hours, they were promised 10,000 hours. After the election they were told only 4,000. Same thing for
[ Page 1101 ]
Kelowna. They were promised more, and they received less after the election. The only difference between the promise and delivery is the election date.


My question to the minister is: if it made financial sense, if it was financially feasible before the election to deliver 10,000 hours in Kamloops and the number of hours that were promised in Kelowna, why were they not delivered after the election?


Hon. S. Bond: Well, you know, the fact of the matter is that we promised additional hours, and that's exactly what we delivered. In fact, we've delivered the most significant addition of hours in transit history in British Columbia — 250,000 hours over two years.


The member opposite is correct. The forecast number that we anticipated being able to add in Kamloops was 11,000 hours. At the end of the day when we actually looked at demand across the province — how do we deliver service; how do we try to meet needs — way oversubscribed demand. In fact, Kamloops received 4,000 hours.


I think that, importantly, at this point B.C. Transit is actually looking at a service review in Kamloops. We have added unprecedented numbers of hours, and B.C. Transit believes that, in fact, we can deliver service perhaps more efficiently. One of the areas we think we can do that in is Kamloops.


We're going to keep working to add more hours right across the province. But I can assure the member opposite: we made a commitment in terms of additional hours. Kamloops received additional hours. Nanaimo received additional hours. Is there extra demand? Of course there is, and we're going to continue to work to meet it.


[1805]

H. Bains: Perhaps I could move on to some more questions on a different area. It seems to me that there's no change in the ministry service plan estimate for public transit ridership level this year. It remains at 235 million annual public transit rides. Is this estimate reasonable, given the rollback in B.C. Transit services?


Hon. S. Bond: Another good-news story for B.C. Transit. They set an annual target increase of 5 percent in terms of ridership. Last year the target was 5 percent, and in fact, they exceeded that target. The increase was 7 percent.


The expectation this year is to be able to hit 5 percent, and we are right on target at this point in terms of meeting that increase as well. The goal, obviously, is to double ridership by 2021. We expect to be able to do that, and I'm really pleased to say that those increases in numbers are virtually across the province.


In my own constituency, where I live, our increase in transit ridership actually hit double digits. I think it was approximately 16 percent last year alone.


H. Bains: But if you look at the ministry service plan, page 15, the public transit ridership goal for 2011-12 is 264 million rides. This is 25 million less than what was estimated in February. What changes were there in order for the ministry to cut back from February to September?


Hon. S. Bond: I know that this is only going to be part of the answer that the member is looking for. Actually, if he could just ask the question again so we can understand what he's comparing, that would be most helpful to us.


I can tell you that B.C. Transit ridership is currently at about 47½ million riders, and we are on target to try to move that to 50 million. The numbers that the member reflects to us are certainly not B.C. Transit numbers.


[1810]

H. Bains: Yes. My apology, Minister. Actually, the number that I'm referring to is the total transit ridership. In February it was estimated that the ridership would be, for 2011-12, 289 million, but the new service plan called for only 264 million for the same year. That is a drop of 25 million in ridership.


In the meantime you're saying that the reduction of greenhouse gas for the transportation sector is to increase use of transit, cycling and other alternative modes of personal transportation. But in this case, you're actually estimating it and bringing it down.


Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the member is correct in terms of the fact that this is a lower forecast of continued growth in ridership. What this is, is simply more current information. B.C. Transit and TransLink reforecast their numbers, and they provide to us what their projections might be.


This is a more modest annual increment in terms of ridership, but the good news is that it's still a 6.5 percent increase. If you think about that, B.C. Transit's target is actually 5 percent a year. Even at a more modest annual increment, a 6.5 percent growth in transit ridership would be a very good-news story.


H. Bains: One of the issues that we talked about yesterday was TransLink's inability to operate and implement the new transit plan that the minister wants them to do because of a lack of resources and funding of TransLink. Is this a reason why you had to lower the estimate, lower the forecast of ridership — because of TransLink's inability to deliver those services and implement those changes that they would like to have?


Hon. S. Bond: Well, to the member opposite: this reflects the best estimate that both TransLink and B.C. Transit provide to us. One can imagine that planning for transit in 2011-2012 is a challenging thing to do, based
[ Page 1102 ]
on all of the circumstances. Look what happened from a year ago. We're seeing ridership down on ferries and a variety of other things. The good news is that we're still seeing ridership numbers increase on B.C. Transit.


[1815]

This information is provided to us by B.C. Transit and TransLink with the best information that they have at the time. They have reforecast their numbers to be 264 million in 2011-2012. But I have to point out to the member opposite that that is still a 6.5 percent increase in ridership, which by anyone's expectations would be very solid growth in ridership numbers.


H. Bains: Of course, these are TransLink numbers and B.C. Transit numbers. But TransLink, in February, was looking at implementing the provincial transit plan, which includes $450 million in new operational funding. Now they have actually come to a brick wall, and they see that there's no option available to them to have that funding available to them.


The minister won't sit down with the mayors to try to come up with the solutions that they need in order to give them capacity to come up with the funding that they need, which is $450 million. Of course, they had to revise those numbers, because what they have now available to them…. They will not be able to deliver those rides that they thought they could in February.


I think, again, that it is something we all should be concerned about. On the one hand, the government is making statements in their service plan that the reduction of greenhouse gas for the transport sector is important and that the only way to do that is to increase use of transit, cycling and other alternative modes of transportation.


The key part of all of that is TransLink, and TransLink's hands are tied right now. They have no capacity to come up with the money that they need in order to implement the provincial transit plan. I think that is the reason, one can clearly see, why they had to revise those numbers.


Anyway, I will move on to the next question.


Also promised prior to the election to the students of this province was that there would be a provincewide U-pass program. Can the minister advise if there's any funding in Vote 42 — anywhere in here — that would actually go to deliver that promise?


Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to correct the record for the member opposite. I'm absolutely committed to meeting with the council of mayors and will do that in short stead and, in fact, have met with the chair and the vice-chair of the council of mayors and, indeed, the chair of the board of TransLink already. I would be happy to do that again and will look forward to doing that in the near future.


In addition to that, I need to point out to the member opposite that really, when we look at reforecasting these numbers, nothing has changed at TransLink since the February presentation of numbers. In fact, all of the funding mechanisms that were in place in February are in place today. The $800 million that is in place for Evergreen and a variety of other projects is all still in place.


What has happened is that B.C. Transit and TransLink look at their numbers. They do their best to actually assess what the ridership will be, and they've come back with what they believe to be a more current reflection of ridership.


Again, I don't think that any of us, while we would love to see that number higher, should be disappointed by the fact that we're going to see 6.5 percent growth at minimum in 2011-2012, according to B.C. Transit and TransLink.


[1820]

In terms of U-pass. In fact, we remain committed to delivering U-pass. I live in a community where just recently the College of New Caledonia students agreed by a very high majority to support a U-pass program. We've seen transit ridership numbers actually go up fairly dramatically because of that, so we're committed to delivering the program. There is no money in this year's budget because our commitment is to work with students and to put a program in place by September of 2010.


H. Bains: I would now give the floor to my colleague from North Coast, but before I do that, I also want to make a comment about the meeting of the minister with the mayors.


As the minister full well knows, they passed a resolution that they will not meet with the minister on an individual basis, because that's what they have heard from the minister — that the minister is prepared to meet one on one and on an individual basis. They have said and made it clear that they will meet only as a group. So I think that's where the issue is — if the minister is going to meet with the entire council of mayors or if she's going to continue to commit to meet with the chair and one or two others.


Anyway, that's my comment on that, but now I would ask my colleague from North Coast to ask the next question.


Hon. S. Bond: I want to just add to the record an answer to one of the questions. I just want to clarify that the February budget number for B.C. Transit is the operating grant only. The September budget number is for B.C. Transit operating and capital funding. B.C. Transit is $99 million, and TransLink is $22 million. I should point out that capital funding is recovered from the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.


In addition to that, I would like to just absolutely clarify for the member opposite that at no time have I
[ Page 1103 ]
as minister ever indicated to anyone that I would meet with the council of mayors individually. I'd be happy to do that, but my intent and my public commitment has always been to meet with the council of mayors.


I met with the chair and the vice-chair of the council of mayors in a courtesy visit, in fact, as I have with the stakeholders, the head of stakeholder groups — with just a long list of partner groups — and continue to do that virtually on a daily basis.


So that is completely inaccurate information. My goal, as the goal of this government, is to work constructively with our partners to deliver on the largest transportation plan in the history of British Columbia. I want to do that in partnership with TransLink and the council of mayors, and I'm committed to doing that.


G. Coons: The current contracts for highway maintenance contractors that were signed in 2004 extend until 2014. I'm just wondering. Are contractors that have a valid contract until 2014 going to get a five-year extension?


Hon. S. Bond: We will go through the appropriate tendering processes when the time for that discussion comes about.


G. Coons: Under highway operations, I'm looking at the budget. Highways maintenance for this year, '09-2010, was cut by $25 million. Over the years it has increased significantly. In the 2006 budget it went up 3 percent, and in the '07 budget it went up about 3 percent. In the '08 budget it went up about 8.4 percent, and in this budget it's getting a 5.4 percent cut.


[1825]

I'm just wondering what this $25 million means to highway users. Where and what is the minister going to cut? There are many concerns to many highway users, and I'm just wondering what the minister has.


Hon. S. Bond: We need to be very clear to the people who live in British Columbia that there is no reduction in maintenance contract values. There's not a reduction in service levels. In fact, we are looking for operational efficiencies. We made that commitment, and that is where the reductions will take place.


G. Coons: So in other words, $25 million in operational efficiencies will not have an impact on the highways this is winter. It sounds like that's what the minister is saying.


Over the years, I'm sure that the minister knows, and at the UBCM the concerns about highway maintenance and issues with winter driving…. I'm sure that there are binders that you have of letters and concerns. This sounds like a slippery slope, or a slippery road, to go down, when you say that you're cutting $25 million and it's not going to impact our highways. I wait to see that.


Again, I reserve the right to submit questions to the minister. There are so many questions but not enough time.


Now, the ministry has 28 highway contracts. I'm just wondering what the total was for highway maintenance contracts last year, and what it's going to be this year.


Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, I want to go back to the previous comment, because I live in northern British Columbia. I can tell you that every day in this province our maintenance contractors….


While there may be a binder of some letters where there are concerns, which we work to address very quickly with our contractors, there is exceptional work done across this province by the men and women who maintain roads in extremely difficult circumstances. I drive on them, and I have every confidence in the maintenance contractors that do their work in this province.


[1830]

I do want to assure the member opposite that the reductions in the budget line that he was speaking of previously…. There will be no reduction in work performed on roads. We're going to look for attrition and spending efficiencies in areas of travel, consulting services, shared services — none of those have anything to do with highway contract maintenance — inflation savings and also some salary recoveries, etc. But there is not any reduction plan for work performed on roads — and again, exceptional work that is done across the province.


In terms of highway maintenance contracts and the numbers that were requested by the member opposite, the number is $370.1 million in '09-10, and the number was $359.2 million in '08-09.


G. Coons: I'm sure the minister knows about the 39 municipalities asking for better highways maintenance less than a year ago, last July. So 39 local governments across British Columbia are pressing this government to improve maintenance, provide greater oversight and impose tougher standards on private contractors.


The list includes 100 Mile House, Alberni, Belcarra, Burnaby, Chase, Chetwynd, Coquitlam, Cumberland, Dawson Creek, Enderby, Grand Forks, Port Alberni, North Saanich, Nakusp, Ladysmith, Kitimat, Kent, Kamloops, Greenwood, Granisle, Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district, Williams Lake, Terrace, Squamish, Stikine, Revelstoke, Salmo — 39 of them. And there are concerns across the province about highways maintenance.


My question to the minister is: what is the minister doing to ensure that good value for money is being offered from the private contractors? Is there an audit system in place?


Hon. S. Bond: I'm smiling because these are the questions that my executive team love to answer. All of them
[ Page 1104 ]
have worked out in the field and have actually spent countless hours in every part of this province dealing with this issue. They're very good at what they do.


So let's talk about customer satisfaction with the way highways are maintained in British Columbia. We actually do a customer satisfaction rating, and last year the rating was 4.05 out of 5. So 80 percent of the people who actually use highways in British Columbia are extremely satisfied with the work that's being done.


The member opposite asks if we have an audit program. Of course we do. We have a quality management program, which in fact has an excellent reputation. We rigorously monitor the contracts.


[1835]

Twice a year contractors actually connect with people in their communities, including people like ambulance drivers, police and other professionals. They even include MLAs on that list because they know that we also use those roads. We participate in sessions that talk about the highway maintenance services that are in our particular areas of the province.


All of that monitoring impacts how contractors are actually paid. I should remind the member opposite that we are actually world leaders in contracted highway maintenance. In fact, other countries come to British Columbia to see how we do what we do. A number of years ago there was an international highway maintenance study and report that was done — it was actually provided to the members of the opposition — in which British Columbia ranked among the top, internationally.


G. Coons: The audits you're talking about — are they accessible by the public?


Hon. S. Bond: In fact, all of that information is available publicly. We have our customer service information and the response that we get. It's actually a service plan measure, so that's pretty public. Audit results are also available publicly.


You know, we talk about the ratings and how we measure the success of contractors. Well, we incent contractors based on their performance. Ratings measure whether contractors actually exceed their contract requirements, and they're based on the results of local and regional assessments and road user satisfaction.


So we look at the work that's done, and we combine all of those things. Contractors that exceed basic requirements actually receive a performance incentive. All of that information is made public, including whether or not an incentive was achieved.


G. Coons: Yes, and when we talk about bonuses to contractors, last year about $5 million was given to contractors as winter and summer bonuses. I believe that the minister knows that some contractors received generous bonuses while they had accumulated numerous safety violations on their maintenance vehicles, putting the public and workers at risk. They still received their bonus.


A freedom-of-information inquiry revealed that private highway maintenance contractors had been hit for operating dangerous trucks. Between April '07 and November '08 there were 534 violations in 147 inspections of the contractors' vehicles.


Emcon Services out of Grand Forks had 129 violations — 86 very serious and 21 serious — and it forced out of service 16 of their trucks and one trailer. They got their bonus of $184,000.


Yellowhead Road and Bridge had 89 violations — 30 serious, 31 serious. Forced out of service for five trucks and six trailers. They got their $181,000 bonus. HMC Services out of Revelstoke-Golden had 81 violations — 32 very serious, 30 serious — and three trucks and four trailers were forced out. They got their bonus of $211,000.


[1840]

Now I think that when we look at the bonus system and we look at highway maintenance and maintenance on vehicles and the hundreds and hundreds of violations that are happening with our maintenance vehicles, we need to take a stand on that.


I'm just sort of wondering: Does the minister agree with contractors with dozens, if not hundreds, of violations getting their bonus?


Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm going to answer the question, but I think that it's incredibly unfortunate that the member opposite, first of all, raises ongoing concern about the people who actually maintain highways in British Columbia. So for the record, they work in extraordinarily and exceptionally challenging geographic circumstances. I live in one of those areas, and I know that the member opposite does as well.


The men and women who work in the field do an exceptional job. So we should be clear that, in fact, when it comes to the safety of vehicles in the province of British Columbia, we actually did those inspections. We actually issued those violations because we want to ensure that the equipment that's being used on highways in British Columbia is actually safe.


Of course it's an issue for us. We're the ones who actually issued those violations. The industry has responded very well. In fact, they have fixed the problems that we have identified and issued violations for.


We need to also be clear that bonuses are actually provided as an incentive, based on the quality of work done on the highways in British Columbia. There is a rigorous monitoring process, and that includes the opportunity for local input, including from communities like the ones that the member opposite listed off.


So in fact, safety is a priority. Bonuses are determined based on the quality of work, and that's determined with
[ Page 1105 ]
the use of an extremely rigorous quality management program, which is actually being looked at by jurisdictions around the world. 


I want to very quickly provide these answers. I know the member opposite wanted them. Minister's travel is broken up into MLA and ministerial and cabinet. There are three votes involved: Vote 1, Vote 29 and Vote 42. Vote 42, as the member opposite pointed out, has $70,000 for minister's office travel. Vote 43 includes minister's ministerial travel and ministry office staff. This is $10,000 less than last year's estimates.


[1845]

The member opposite also asked about capital. In fact, in 2008-2009 our total capital program would have been almost $1.2 billion. In 2009-2010 it's $1.45 billion. If you include the Port Mann bridge in those totals, the number is $1.24 billion in 2008-2009 and over $2 billion in 2009-2010, for an increase of almost $800 million. That does not include capital projects that we have partnered with communities, so that's a significant addition.


In relation to Bike to Work Week, that was one of the discretionary grants that, unfortunately, we are not repeating this year. It was a grant in 2008, a one-time contribution.


Noting the hour, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Motion approved.


The committee rose at 6:46 p.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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175