1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 16

[ Page 10283 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

A. Hagen: I'm very pleased to welcome to the Legislature this afternoon approximately 25 people, with their instructor Ms. B. Stephens, from the Options Unlimited program based in New Westminster. They're in the Legislature today to learn something about our government and how we function as a democracy. I know that the session will be interesting for them. Will you join me in welcoming them this afternoon.

L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure today.... It's not that often that I have an opportunity to introduce guests, let alone a group from a school, but today we have a group of students who have travelled here from the Robson Valley. I'd ask the House to give a warm welcome to students from the Robson Valley Junior Academy and their teacher Mr. George Schafer. They have left the wonderful area of the Robson Valley to come down to the rainy town of Victoria to see the Legislature. Would you please greet them.

D. Streifel: One of the privileges we have as members is to introduce to British Columbians guests who come to visit us in this chamber. It's an absolute privilege and a pleasure for me to introduce a good friend of mine and a good source of information in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area. Would the House help me welcome Shirley Cooke.

D. Schreck: I see in the gallery one of the city councillors from the city of North Vancouver. Will the House please join me in welcoming Councillor Bill Bell.

G. Janssen: Joining us today in the galleries are two women actively involved in the women's movement in Port Alberni. I ask the House to please welcome Sue Egers and Pam Keel.

G. Brewin: From perhaps rainy downtown Victoria, but very full of gardens and flowers, I would like the House to welcome to this chamber 30 grade 7 students from South Park Elementary and their teacher Mr. Koytshyn. Welcome to all of you.

F. Garden: In the gallery I recognize a good Caribooster. I don't know whether he's from Hon. D. Zirnhelt's riding or mine, but both of us bump into him a lot. He's a reporter for the Williams Lake Tribune. I'd like you to join me in welcoming Bill Phillips.

Hon. D. Miller: It's a busy day for introductions, but it's not often that those of us from the north get people down here. So I would like to introduce a very old and dear friend and supporter, Ms. Brenda Gardiner from Prince Rupert -- where we grow moss better than we grow grass.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to note that we have in the galleries today a first-time visitor to Canada from England, who arrived late last night, Mr. Alec Moore. He's here today visiting with his cousin Jim, better known to some members of the House as Jim Bennett. Would members welcome Alec Moore to Canada and to today's proceedings.

C. Evans: I think there are about half a million renters in British Columbia. Representing these people in the Legislature today -- they have a lot more constituents than any of us -- are Kim Zander, Tom Durning and Brent Mueller. Would members please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today we have Harley Stubbing, Richard Roy and Darren Smith of Rogers Cable 4 in Burnaby. They are here to do interviews with the MLAs. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

LAND PURCHASE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The official opposition has learned that during the fall of 1991 a Ms. Brady met with the present Minister of Agriculture to discuss legal road access to her property at Opheim Lake. The advice given to her at that time by the member was that she herself should contact the owner of the property through which she needed access, in order to negotiate legal access. Subsequent to those meetings, the Minister of Agriculture himself purchased the property in question and became that very owner. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that that action by that minister is in fact in violation of

section 3 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which reads as follows: "A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office...to...seek to further the member's private interest"?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't confirm that. I'd be happy to take the question on notice for the minister.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

G. Campbell: Today I have written to the conflict-of-interest commissioner requesting that he investigate the actions of the Minister of Agriculture, which have all the appearances of a conflict of interest. Clearly, from the information available, the Minister of Agriculture has used his public position to further his private interests. My question is to the Deputy Premier: how can she justify the actions of a minister who abuses the public trust in this way?

Hon. E. Cull: This government has brought in the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in this country. The member, in the action that he has just outlined, is making appropriate use of this legislation. I'm sure the conflict-of-interest commissioner will take the action he is required to take under the act.

The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member?

G. Campbell: This government constantly tells us about their tough conflict-of-interest guidelines, and they fail to act on them day in and day out, week in and week out. It should not be up to the opposition to hold cabinet ministers to account, to make sure they are taking care of the public interest instead of pursuing their private interests. That's the job of the Premier and Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier not demand the resignation of that minister today and protect the public trust?

[ Page 10284 ]

Hon. E. Cull: The Leader of the Opposition refers to these as conflict-of-interest guidelines, and maybe for his party that's what they are. But the conflict-of-interest law is the law that we brought in in this province. The conflict-of-interest commissioner is a servant of the House, not of the government, and will take the action that is appropriate under the law.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The government has an obligation to take care of the public trust as well. If we're always waiting for the

conflict-of-interest commissioner to act, that is hardly a star for the government's behaviour. The fact of the matter is that your Premier previously pointed out that when a minister handed a business card to someone, it was totally unacceptable behaviour. Why the double standard? The only unacceptable behaviour here is your government's failure to act to protect the public and demand a minister's resignation when it's called for.

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: The Leader of the Official Opposition has pronounced the sentence and is now calling for the trial. The appropriate order is that the conflict-of-interest commissioner will receive the letter from the Leader of the Opposition and take whatever action is required under the act.

SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE

V. Anderson: This is a question to the Minister of Social Services. We're all aware of the tragic death of five-year-old Matthew Vaudreuil, apparently after Social Services failed to take action to help him and his mother. Will the minister explain how this happened? Why did the ministry tragically fail in their responsibility? The public wants to know why this happened.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I completely share your grief around this tragic death. The minute that the criminal investigation was completed at the beginning of March, I ordered a review into the circumstances surrounding the death, and I anticipate that that review will be completed by mid-May. I can commit to you that I will share its results and any recommendations flowing from that review so that all the members of the House have a chance to review and consider them.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your commitment to present the results of the review to us, but that's an internal review. The public wants an independent review by those who are not in the process, looking after themselves, so that they can be assured that it is honest, fair and just to everybody concerned. Will the minister undertake to have an independent review by those who are not involved in the process, so that we might have assurance in the reply?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said to you, I will commit to making the results and recommendations available, within the constraints of the Family and Child Service Act, for the first time ever. Previous governments didn't do this. For the very first time ever, I will make those results and recommendations available to all members of this House, so that we can all consider them. That's as open a process as you'll get. That's an excellent, open process.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: This is one more of this ministry's tragic failures, which have been happening ever since the government has been in power. We asked last year that there be an independent public review of the whole social services system, which was refused by the previous minister before she lost her position. Will this minister undertake to have a full public review of the total social services system in this province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume you mean the family and child service side of the ministry. Contrary to what you have stated, our government instituted a review of family and child services and published two excellent reports in 1992. One report dealt with aboriginal families and the other with making changes to the entire family and child service system. We then had a White Paper, a discussion paper, which you and I have discussed on many occasions, hon. member. You know as well as I do that changes are anticipated. After legislation has been on the books for 15 years, it is time for change, and you know that we're ready to do that.

PEAT MARWICK REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Perhaps the minister can tell us why she never released the 1992 Peat Marwick report dealing with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Was it because that report proves that the government's underfunding of rehabilitation will cost the government billions of dollars down the road, or was it perhaps because she didn't want British Columbians to know that safety was being seriously compromised by her government's failure to keep rehabilitation at an acceptable level?

Hon. J. Pement: The reports in question were under another minister at the time. However, I can assure the member that traffic safety issues and highway safety are a number one priority with this minister and with this ministry. I will make certain that we bring reports forward that cover those issues.

The Speaker: The member has a supplementary?

J. Weisgerber: The minister's own deputy stated in the Peat Marwick report that the government must spend a minimum of $250 million a year on rehabilitation or face serious costs down the road. This government has cut spending on rehabilitation....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Will the hon. member please state his question.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister will explain why she allowed her budget to be reduced.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps....

[ Page 10285 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has asked one question. Does the member have a further question?

J. Weisgerber: The question is: why did the minister allow rehabilitation spending to fall from $167 million in 1991 to $139 million this year?

Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to say to the member that we in the ministry always have upgrading our highways as a priority. We try very hard to ensure that we meet the needs and the priorities of each of the regions. I would suggest that the member broach the subject of budget estimates at the appropriate time.

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the minister. The report released by the minister indicates the ministry's figures on the number and cost of salaried employees and is marked in the margins as "fudged" by the ministry. Can the minister confirm that the other figures in the report are accurate, or are all of the figures in the Peat Marwick report fudged by the ministry?

Hon. J. Pement: I would suggest that they broach some of these issues in the budget estimates debate. Don't forget that these reports were done on the past government's performance and behaviour and with the figures they put forward. So I would suggest that the member look back at some of their budget speeches in the last while regarding budget cuts, deficits and debt. One could maybe look at the priorities in all budgets and in all ministries.

COMMUNITY-BASED AIDS STRATEGY

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. We know that the AIDS Secretariat chair quit over this government's doublespeak on an AIDS strategy. Now, after the budgets are finalized and the programs have been eliminated, the minister requests a meeting with the AIDS coalition. Where is this minister's commitment to a community-based AIDS strategy when consultation is merely an afterthought?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Unfortunately, all the member has wrong are her facts and her conclusions. The facts are that this government is committed to AIDS prevention in this province. When we took over government from the previous administration, which could barely acknowledge the existence of AIDS, funding on AIDS prevention from all aspects of the ministry stood at $1.4 million. In the current year, 1994-95, we will have spent over $4.5 million on AIDS prevention -- a 300 percent increase.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

L. Reid: That was a disgusting display by this minister. I have talked to individuals who believe that this government is selling direct programming short. You have a $4.5 million budget, and $2.75 million is going to direct programs. Where are the other dollars going? The people on the street want the answers to those questions, hon. minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Those additional moneys are going to promotion campaigns to prevent the spread of AIDS. They are going to health units and community groups around the province. We have a comprehensive program here that involves the community and empowers the AIDS activist community on the secretariat to make decisions about how we can spend funds to do the most to prevent the spread of AIDS.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

L. Reid: The chair of the AIDS Secretariat has so much confidence in your remarks that he quit. There is no comprehensive AIDS strategy in this province. This government promised it; they said they absolutely would put that in place. You have just cut some of the finest outreach programs in North America.

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

L. Reid: There is no justification. When will you endeavour to return direct funding for direct programs? People are not prepared to pay any more for administrative costs.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I wish the member opposite had the respect for members of the AIDS activist community that I do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The AIDS Secretariat is charged with allocating moneys for public groups involved in the prevention of AIDS. They received a 10 percent funding increase, to $2.75 million. The AIDS Secretariat recommended that we have to consider AIDS as more than an urban disease. Therefore they recommended more than doubling the number of groups that receive funding through the secretariat. Most groups have received equivalent or greater funding in the coming year. The AIDS Secretariat has decided how these funds can be spent to do the most to prevent AIDS in our province.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a document received from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways pursuant to the Peat Marwick report of 1992.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of the B.C. Police Commission for the fiscal year 1992-93.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In the main House I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for New Westminster, perhaps the members who are going to be leaving would do so.

[ Page 10286 ]

A. Hagen: This afternoon I rise in support of one of the most significant pieces of legislation that I have seen come before this Legislature since I was elected in 1986. One might wonder, given the large number of people in our membership coming from forest communities, why I would be standing this afternoon when I know so many other people want to speak.

[2:30]

I want to make very clear to the members of this House, speaking on behalf of my constituents, that this piece of legislation is important for all of the communities that lie on the historic banks of the lower region of the Fraser River -- recognizing that the Fraser River extends as the primary river source through so many of our forest communities. I believe the imagination of my community and the communities around the Fraser will be increasingly captured by the intent and the results of this legislation, which is the centrepiece of an initiative that I believe is without parallel in forest legislation throughout the continent.

We all know -- and I don't want to belabour the point at all -- how much our economy in British Columbia historically owes to the forest industry and how much its future owes to the forest industry. I always like to translate that kind of historic and economic activity into people, because it's people who participate in creating our wealth by working in jobs and contributing to their communities.

What I want to talk about for a very few minutes today are the ways in which this bill and the initiatives that will flow from it will affect my region, New Westminster, and all of those communities -- the Coquitlams, Surreys, Maple Ridges, Missions, Abbotsfords, Matsquis -- that have historically had a link to the forest industry. In communities all around the province, there have been changes over the last number of years. There are fewer jobs, and they're different.

But there is a spirit of hope and optimism around this forest initiative, which reflects the good planning that has gone into it and the partnerships it represents. This is not just the work of government. Somebody spoke about consultation a moment ago. This is the product of an enormous amount of energy and creativity from people who are in the industry as managers and industrialists, and, even more significantly for us, from people who are in the industry as workers, and people who care about the forest as part of our environment and as a renewable and constant source of wealth and activity in British Columbia.

Last week I had some time to go out in my riding and talk, in particular, with the people who work in New Westminster -- the mill managers, millworkers and union people who have contributed to the development of this plan. The first thing I want to note about those visits and discussions is that

whereas we often think that what goes on in Victoria is not something that people across the water pay a lot of attention to, the people I talked to -- and they were ordinary workers in a mill -- were aware of the work that was going on. They were interested in knowing its substance, and most particularly they wanted to know how it was going to affect them. They wanted to talk about that, and they wanted to know what their role and their participation might be.

Indeed, because of the comprehensiveness of this plan, because of the comprehensiveness of the partnerships that exist, the people who work in my community and who contribute to the economy and the life of my community will benefit from this initiative. It will administer, in partnership, new dollars for new activities, both in the woods and, as a result of those activities, also in the mills and the production lines of the province.

There were three areas, all of them addressed by the work that will be encompassed by this bill, that people wanted to know about. First of all, they wanted to know that the raw materials they need for their work were in fact going to be available to them. They wanted to know that we were going to be looking at maintaining and enhancing those raw materials that come into the mills.

Because of the work that will go on in the forests, because of the ways in which forests will be managed and because of the cooperation between workers and communities that are the prime drawers of the raw material, we were able to see ways in which that source of their work, the raw materials, would continue to flow into their plants.

Secondly, because these workers have been through technological changes, because they have seen the enormous number of changes that have occurred in the forest industry along the Fraser over the last ten or 15 years, they wanted to know about ways in which we would be contributing through this renewal plan to adding value to our wood. I visited a mill where that ethos and that use of the raw material was already at a very high level.

The 2-by-2s that came in were sawed into 2-by-1s, then sawed into lengths and manufactured into goods that went to Japan, Germany or the United States -- specialty markets that had been highly developed.

These people knew that keeping in touch with those markets and developing new products are indeed the future of the industry. They saw that the value of a 2-by-4 could be augmented six or seven times through value-added processes that could be accomplished in their mills, and that a wide variety of those value-added processes might come out of a single mill. They were, in fact, working on the future and recognizing that they would need to stay on top of research and development and technology to stay competitive with the best use of woods of all dimensions and kinds.

We know that one of the ways the dollars flowing into this initiative will be used is to make sure that we get more jobs and economic results from every cubic metre of wood. It's a very simple goal, but a very complex one in terms of what our forest industry will look like ten or 15 years from now.

Finally, the issues they wanted to talk about are related to skills and training. These people have already gone through some upgrading to be in a value-added mill. Many of them know that their fellow workers need opportunities for new skills training in the mills as well as in the woods. There was the beginning of a training trailer at that mill. It didn't have steps, power or light, but those are easy things to add.

Here again, in a partnership with the mill manager, the IWA and the workers, they were looking at ways in which the workers could personally upgrade their academic skills and learn new skills, often using modern technology -- computers, which are not very much a part of that mill at this stage -- to further augment the work they are doing.

Knowing that this is part of a broader plan for workers who are not yet at a point where training is in the workplace was exciting to them. They had many questions. They knew about the initiative; they knew about the plans. They knew there was a commitment of new money, $2 billion, over the next five years. This is unlike the previous administrations, where there were promises of money for forest renewal, forest technology, training and research and development -- promises that were broken. These dollars are there; they are in place.

They are separate from the other accounts of government and will be used for the purposes that this bill outlines for us. The amounts and their use will be accountable back to this Legislature through the people who have helped, through our government, to work in partnership with industry, workers and environmentalists to bring about this far-reaching and creative plan.

[ Page 10287 ]

When we pass legislation in this House, it is rare to be able to say that within a month dollars will be flowing and available for programs, the beginnings of a very efficient structure will be in place and we will be seeing the first steps of a long-range plan that will affect the lives and work of people in communities around the province. When I say that, I recognize there is an enormous amount of work to be done, but most of us feel good when we can get down to work and get practically involved with doing something that we know has such value to the people who live and work in communities across the land.

As I talk to people in my community, where the forest industry has been a very essential part of its history and where people have come from across the world to work in the mills on the banks of the Fraser, I heard two sincere and heartfelt questions about communities in the resource extraction parts of the province. People are cutting the trees, and now they will be renewing our forests in ways that we haven't known and seen before. They want to work with their brothers and sisters in those communities.

There is a sense of community among people who work and live by the forest industry, and a concern that all parts of that industry will be nourished and looked after by government working in cooperation with workers, industry and environmentalists.

Many of these people are environmentally sensitive, aware and involved. They wanted to know, too, that the kinds of things they did in their leisure time around the streams and forests, if they were fisherfolk or hikers, were a part of the renewal plan -- all of this with an announcement that had come five or six days before, all of this with people who were already tuned in to the significance and effect of this work upon them and their work in their communities.

It's with enormous pleasure that I speak in favour of this legislation today. Like all of the members of this House, I will be working with our communities in its implementation. I believe it has been set up in a way that allows for the kind of partnerships that all of us have craved and have paid very strong attention to. The one concern I have is that our opposition -- which, it seems to me, tends to never be able to recognize there are times when we need to come together to support an initiative -- will try to undermine the sense of direction here and work against the cooperation and partnerships that are in place. I believe that is the kind of harm that an

ill-considered opposition can do with an initiative which we should all get behind.

It is seldom that people from the workforce, industry, the environmental movement and from government are able to sit down, start a process and make a commitment to it for the long term. I for one will be working with them in my community as we proceed with this very significant initiative for our province and for its historic and still very important industry, the forestry industry.

J. Pullinger: It's with a great deal of pride and some satisfaction that I rise to speak in favour of Bill 32 today. Bill 32 is, of course, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I'm proud to support this legislation, which demonstrates in a very significant way, once again, that this government is keeping the commitments it made during the last election and before. Those are commitments that affect every one of us every day in this province.

[2:45]

During the last election, we New Democrats said that if we formed government, we would change the way B.C.'s forests are managed, and we would end the decades of government neglect and mismanagement of B.C.'s most important resource. We said that we would double B.C.'s parks and wilderness to bring them up to the 12 percent minimum, which is the internationally recognized minimum of wilderness area. We said we would settle native land claims and that the wrongs of the past 100 years would be righted in a way that's fair to all British Columbians. We said we would change the way we carried on logging in this province. We said that things like the inappropriate use of

grapple-yarders, too many roads or badly built roads, erosion into creeks and streams and other environmentally damaging practices around British Columbia must stop. We said we would balance the needs of the environment with the needs for jobs and community economic stability. We said we'd end the valley-by-valley conflict that we've seen escalate over the past decade, and we would make changes that would lead ultimately to peace in the woods. The people of British Columbia have had enough conflict and confrontation.

We New Democrats said we would do things differently. We said we recognize that the forests belong to the people and that the people of this province must benefit from the use of their forests. We promised change and have delivered on that promise. In just two and a half years, we have made a great deal of progress on our commitments. We have the formulation of a land use plan for the province; it's well underway. That plan will identify where we can log and what we must set aside.

We have internationally significant areas like the Khutzeymateen and Tatshenshini set aside for future generations, in spite of the Liberal opposition's demands that we allow mining and logging in parks. We have B.C.'s first forest practices code, which will become law this session. This will mean better, more sensitive, and in many cases -- in fact, in most cases -- more labour-intensive logging. The B.C. Treaty Commission is in place to settle land claims. A cost-sharing agreement is in place with the federal government, and the first round of negotiations is getting underway with B.C.'s native people.

Today we are debating the forest renewal plan. Bill 32 is a piece of legislation that represents yet another major step forward on the part of this government towards fulfilling our commitment. It's ambitious and far-reaching. Perhaps most important of all, it's a plan that looks to the long term. The forest renewal plan, quite frankly, will change forever the way we manage our forests in this province. I doubt that any legislation on this continent equals it.

The New Democrat government of British Columbia has recognized the importance of the land and forests of this province, and we have developed the very first long-term plan to sustain them and reinvest in them. The forest renewal plan will sustain our forest and forest economy for the long term -- not just for the next few years, but for the next hundred years and beyond.

What we're debating today, Bill 32, represents an unprecedented partnership among communities, business, environmentalists, first nations, forest workers and government. That in itself is a significant accomplishment. This is a piece of win-win legislation. Over the next five years, we're going to see some $2 billion invested in our forests to renew and sustain them for the long term. That money will work to create stable, well-paying jobs in our forests, the kinds of jobs that support families and communities.

Those dollars will create a more secure future for the forest industry and a healthier forest environment. Those dollars will ensure a prosperous economy by reinvesting in our forests -- an economy based, as it always has been in this province, on our forests and forest industry. Those dollars and this forest renewal plan will protect a way of life that is quintessentially British Columbian.

[ Page 10288 ]

This plan has been developed through consensus and cooperation. It has been acclaimed by virtually every interest group and everyone in this province -- with one notable exception, and that is the Liberal opposition. The Liberal opposition, I regret to say, is opposing Bill 32, the forest renewal plan. I want to look for a moment at the arguments the Liberals are putting forward and the basis of that opposition. We're hearing -- perhaps the loudest cry from the other side -- that we don't need another Crown corporation. The Liberal opposition wants the money for this forest renewal plan to go directly to general revenue through the Ministry of Forests. And why not? Why shouldn't it go there?

Let me outline a couple of reasons. First, let's recognize that we have a significant, ambitious and far-reaching plan for our forests here. That plan and that $2 billion over the next five years is not going to magically manage itself. It will take somebody's time and expertise and a great deal of work to manage that money appropriately. We can't simply ask the people working in the Ministry of Forests to take on yet another massive task. Let us not forget that that would mean that other important tasks being undertaken by the Ministry of Forests would go undone.

Let's not forget that there have been some massive and fundamental changes in the last two years. We have the Forest Practices Code, biodiversity guidelines, the CORE process, the protected areas strategy, sustainability studies -- and the list goes on. A tremendous amount of creative and innovative work has been undertaken by this government and carried out by the people in the Ministry of Forests. To suggest that we should hand them another $2 billion task is ludicrous and unworkable.

Perhaps another and better reason for using this model, which is at arm's length from government, is that it dedicates by law that the funds created through the stumpage charges go to Forest Renewal B.C. and then directly back into our forests. That is important, especially if you look a bit at the history of this province.

Hon. Speaker, as you well remember, the last government -- and the last free enterprise government coalition in this province -- had a tendency to regularly divert things like silviculture funds into other programs. Instead of having investment of any kind in our forests, which we so desperately need, we ended up with things like Music '91, that $30 million black hole. This way the money goes directly to Forest Renewal B.C. and directly into our forests. To change that requires open, public debate in this Legislature.

Let's not forget, amid the cries of bureaucracy and too much government, that taxpayers' money is not going into this program; this is 100 percent stumpage and royalties. It's coming out of the woods, going through Forest Renewal B.C., and being invested back into the woods.

The Liberal opposition is also complaining that by creating this plan and by using a handful of people to manage it, we're adding to what they call overgovernment. I would like to suggest to this House that the cries of overgovernment are an ideological crusade. It's not a commonsense approach, and it's not real. Let's not forget that government is about services to people. If you're saying that we should get rid of government, you're saying that we should get rid of Health, Social Services and Education, and we should pull people out of the forests, like the previous government did, and leave them to manage themselves.

I recognize that the Liberals want to take a slash-and-burn approach, like the Klein government in Alberta, and gut services, lay off workers, increase unemployment and deepen the recession, but we reject that approach. In the 1980s, with the kind of restraint that we hear advocated from across the floor, B.C. was dead last coming out of the recession by every economic indicator.

With the balanced approach that this government is taking -- by protecting services to people and creating the infrastructure we need to effectively do things like manage our forests -- British Columbia is leading the way out of the economic recession this time. We reject the approach the Liberals put forward. In my view, it's dumb economics and dumb social policy, and we all pay in the long term. People in British Columbia want their agents in the woods. People want forest practices monitored, controlled and regulated. People want government to accept its responsibility for our forests.

Let's recognize that that shortsighted, ideologically driven approach seen in the last two decades doesn't work. It hasn't worked, and there's lots of evidence to support that conclusion.

There's a final reason that the model we're suggesting -- the arm's-length model -- is a good one and ought to be supported by the members opposite. If you remember, the previous government asked Sandy Peel to do some work on a commission on our forests. That body recommended that there be such an arm's-length body to manage our land and resources. Numerous other bodies, reports or investigations -- those with some expertise -- have echoed that. They've said that we need to take some of the benefits from our forests and redirect them back in through an arm's-length body. That's what we're doing.

Interestingly, the Liberals are objecting to the underpinnings of what we're doing in Bill 32. We're taking charge of the industry on behalf of the people who own the forests, the people of British Columbia. We're setting up the rules by which we will operate, to make sure that we have long-term prosperity and jobs and that our forests are environmentally and economically sustainable.

Instead of accepting that and agreeing, like everyone else in the province, the Liberals are calling for increased control by corporations. They're saying government should not get involved in forestry, that we should give longer and more secure tenures to industry and that industry ought to be given more public incentives to manage well. They're saying the forests should be handed over to the corporations, and we as government, the agent of the people, ought not to interfere. They reject public management of a public resource.

I'd like to remind the Liberal members of this House that that is precisely what we've had for the last 20, 30 or 40 years in British Columbia. We've had successive free enterprise coalitions in this province sit back and blindly believe that the interests of private corporations are precisely the same as the interests of the people of British Columbia. They gave industry a free hand to manage. We had a decade of sympathetic administrations in the eighties. They downsized government. They took the people's agents out of the woods.

We always said that that approach was wrong; New Democrats always disagreed with that approach. Today we see how very wrong that approach was. We can look back to rapidly escalating levels of cuts, with equally rapidly declining numbers of jobs and forest community economies. We can look back to inexcusable amounts of waste, environmental damage and virtually no investment in the forests and lands that sustain us. To suggest that we ought to intensify and expand the model that has done so much damage is foolish, shortsighted and, quite frankly, a disservice to the people of this province.

The Liberals also object to the stumpage and royalty increases. That's not surprising, given that they have

[ Page 10289 ]

committed to removing a whole lot of taxes from corporations -- hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxes -- and shifting them onto the backs of working people in this province. This is the Howe Street party; we know that. But these people need to ask their constituency what they think. Obviously, big businesses and corporations don't love the increase. But they do recognize that it's necessary. They recognize that low stumpage rates have been an argument in countervail. They recognize the need to invest back into our forests, and they know this increase is going back into our forests.

They know it's part of a long-term plan. They therefore not only support what we're doing but have been part of the creation of this plan.

Finally, in terms of stumpage, let's just remember that wood prices will drive stumpage, not the reverse. Stumpage is going to be sensitive to the marketplace, and that will ensure that our industry in British Columbia can compete in the global marketplace.

[3:00]

The Liberals are objecting to Bill 32 on the basis that it's going to displace existing silviculture programs and workers. There is no substance to that argument whatsoever. This is money from a different source which is going to a different body to do different things. It's entirely separate, entirely new, entirely different, and it won't in any way affect the existing silviculture programs.

Similarly, the Liberals are opposing this legislation on the basis, they claim, that Forest Renewal B.C. will not be an accountable body. That also is not true. I would direct the opposition to

section 10 of the legislation, where it clearly lays out not just how but when Forest Renewal B.C. will table its reports to the Legislature and how those debates will come to the Legislature. This body will be very accountable through and to this Legislature in the usual manner.

The Liberals and Socreds -- now Reformers -- are the voices in the wilderness objecting to Bill 32 in this Legislature. But let's not forget that the Liberals promised something to the people of British Columbia. They promised a new kind of opposition: they would be constructive; they would oppose on the basis of real concerns; and they would not simply oppose for the sake of opposing. Yet what we've seen, especially in this session, is empty rhetoric, groundless accusations and silly criticisms, such as we're hearing this week on Bill 32.

We on this side of the House have kept and are keeping our promise to the people of B.C. We can't say the same about the people on the other side. I would suggest to the members opposite that the people of this province have had enough conflict and confrontation, and sooner or later the people of British Columbia will see through the empty rhetoric and see that the emperor, in fact, wears no clothes.

Our government has worked with industry, the value-added sector, native peoples, environmentalists and labour in developing the forest renewal plan. It's rooted in consultation, cooperation and consensus. It provides all of us with the opportunity to work together and make positive and constructive changes for the future. Not surprisingly, this plan has been hailed by all as visionary, creative and precisely what we need to do in this province. There's enthusiasm all around, except on the benches opposite. And that's too bad.

In the time I have remaining, let me turn to precisely what Bill 32 does. Bill 32 takes the wealth created in the forests and puts it back into the forests and the jobs in the communities that rely on them. Here's how we're going to do it. Over the next five years approximately $2 billion from increased stumpage rates will be invested back into the forests. We're going to develop new policies to complement and enhance this investment. Aboriginal people will have full access to the investments under the plan.

Our forest renewal plan has two investment priorities: forest renewal and creating more value from the trees we harvest. It's going to put people to work renewing our forests through improved silviculture, faster replanting and better forest tending -- all things that forest workers have been calling for for years.

As I said earlier, these new investments are going to be in addition to existing silviculture programs and work being done at this time. As part of the B.C. forest renewal plan, we're going to increase the lands available for planting new trees, including converting some marginal agricultural and other lands into new forests. If they have better value as forest land and active forests, then we'll put them back into forests. We're going to get better forest inventory information, and we're going to evaluate what we do in terms of intensive silviculture.

Taking these steps now will make a tremendous difference to levels of harvesting in the future. These major investments are going to lower the reductions that are staring us in the face because of falldown and the shift from old-growth to second-growth forests. They're going to reduce that problem, and there will not be the kind of job loss that we might otherwise have seen. By putting money back into the forest now, we can bring the sustainable harvest back to current levels in the long term. That's great news for forest workers and forest communities and, ultimately, for all British Columbians.

As well as silviculture activities, the forest renewal plan will put people back to work restoring and protecting the health of forest ecosystems. We're going to clean up environmental damage, rehabilitate streams and rivers, and restore hillsides damaged by roadbuilding. We're also going to make additional investments to protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats. We will extend the research work already being done for the Forest Practices Code. Tough enforcement of environmentally sound forest practices will make a tremendous difference to the health and sustainability of our forests, and we need the government's agents in the forests to make sure that there is tough enforcement.

Through the forest renewal plan we are also going to test new approaches to improved stewardship of the forests, including things like community forests -- something people in my area have not only been calling for but have been working on successfully for a significant length of time. We're going to have an expanded woodlot licence program and pilot programs to enhance the sense of long-term commitment that forest operators have for the woods they work in. We're going to encourage harvesting the full range of forest types but in a sustainable way, and we're going to make use of the residual timber material that's now being left on the ground.

In my year of work on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, possibly the complaint we heard most often from the value-added sector was that they could not get access to the waste. They wanted to take that waste from the mills and woods and make it into products to sell. We're going to encourage that kind of thing. We're going to encourage selective harvesting and commercial thinning. The forest renewal plan will also put British Columbians to work creating more value from the trees we cut. The forests belong to the people; they have not been getting value out of them in terms of jobs.

For companies that create jobs by producing value-added wood products, we're going to provide start-up and expansion assistance, better access to wood supply and research and development on new technologies, products

[ Page 10290 ]

and markets. Again, this is something that came out of the year of work by the

all-party committee on the value-added sector, and I'm very pleased to see it reflected in this legislation.

As well as the value-added sector and the supports and encouragement for it, there's an education component to the forest renewal plan. We want -- and we need -- to ensure that workers have the skills they need for today and tomorrow. Forest practices and the way logging occurs are changing rapidly, and we need to keep up. In order to do that, a forest sector skills council will include representatives of government, forest companies and workers. It will continue to cooperatively coordinate and evaluate existing training and to develop new training where appropriate and where needed. We're going to develop specific new training for forest workers and

wood-processing workers. All of this will make a tremendous difference to workers, families and the communities in which they live by improving job opportunities.

There will also be funding for community and regional economic development. We need to ensure that communities receive the maximum benefit from all of these plans. As well, we need to assist communities, such as Lake Cowichan, which has historically been dependent on the industry, in diversifying their economies.

Interestingly, these kinds of plans usually take a long time to put into practice, but by working together for the past year and longer, we're in a position now that we can put this plan into place. Beginning on May 1, stumpage fees are going to increase, and they will give us, on average, $400 million a year to invest back into the forests.

I'm proud of what we have accomplished. By working together in a cooperative partnership, we have developed the forest renewal plan, which for the first time gives us a long-term strategy to invest back into our forests. This government has a vision of a better future, a vision that we put forward in the last election. It is a more certain future, with a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. This forest renewal plan is a key part of the overall plan to solve the land use challenges we face in British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, we've done a tremendous amount already. A number of measures are already in place that together form very solid building blocks for the future. We have the timber supply review, the forest renewal plan and the Forest Practices Code working together. We have CORE and the protected areas strategy to set aside the lands that we need to set aside, and we have processes to deal with the very legitimate and longstanding claims by first nations.

Together these initiatives form a comprehensive plan that will allow us, and hopefully the opposition Liberals as well, to set aside the conflicts and confrontations that have plagued this province increasingly over the last decade. Quite frankly, it's time to quit playing politics with the future of our forests and get on with the job.

The B.C. forest renewal plan allows us the opportunity to do that. It's based on consultation and cooperation and will only work with continued cooperation and partnerships. Through this vehicle, all of us in British Columbia now have the opportunity to work together. The plan is going to ensure that the forests and the forest industry remain a central, proud part of our economy and our society. It is going to ensure that communities like those in my riding that have had a very legitimate fear they will not survive, especially the communities around Lake Cowichan, not only will survive but will thrive.

In closing, I want to applaud the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, the members of this House who participated in the Select Standing Committee on Forests study of valued-added industry, my colleagues in cabinet, the Minister of Forests and the Premier for this far-reaching, ambitious legislation. This is a milestone in the history of forest management in British Columbia. It will give the forest back to the people of B.C. and begin to build the kind of future we all want to see. I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I urge the members opposite to look seriously at it and do the same.

R. Neufeld: I rise today to speak to Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. It's interesting to listen to views from different members from all parts of British Columbia on how each one feels that the forests in this beautiful province should be renewed.

I can tell you that I support the concept. I have many times said in this House that I support the concept of enhanced silviculture. There's no doubt it's something we must do if we are going to continue to be able to enjoy the economy that we have and the services that we receive in British Columbia. I also agree with worker retraining in the forest industry. No doubt about it, there are going to be a number of forest workers -- in fact, quite a few -- who are going to be displaced by some of the initiatives taken by this NDP government, and some reasons will not be of their making.

One of them is overharvesting. I would say that we're not overharvesting provincewide, but we're definitely overharvesting in some of the areas in British Columbia.

The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith acts surprised, but if she went back and looked at some of her homework, she would find it to be a little different than what she thinks.

[H. De Jong in the chair.]

The reduction in the annual allowable cut comes from increasing protected areas in the province such as the Tat, and all kinds of areas and parks, from 6 percent to 12 percent of the land base. Unfortunately, most of those areas that are protected fall right in the prime timber-producing parts of the province. I agree that we have to put aside enough land. I'm not so sure that if the international community says we need 12 percent, we should be saying: "Yes, we agree. We'll do 12 percent, we'll do 15 percent" -- or whatever.

[3:15]

Some parts of the bill I can support, and some parts of it I can't. When the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith talks about taking charge of the industry on behalf of the people, it makes me nervous. It should make almost every British Columbian nervous. That's more socialism than British Columbians want; that's more socialism than anybody in the world wants. Totally taking over the forest industry is not the answer -- no way.

That member thinks that government can run every industry better than private industry. If we go back to ICBC -- a brainchild of this government some 20 years ago -- and have a look at the costs that go along with it, we would see how well received that is in British Columbia today. Let's think about Ocean Falls, that other brainchild of the government of the day, and how well that worked. Let's look around the world at socialism and see how well it has worked.

The minister in his opening remarks.... In fact, the Premier and every member of the NDP caucus continually stand up in this House and talk about the terrible practices of the past. Everything was so terrible. They're the knights in shining armour; they've come along and are going to clean up everything, and everything is going to be perfect. They have a surprise coming. The surprises have been pretty

[ Page 10291 ]

evident in the last while, with the CORE report not being received quite as well as they thought it would be. The member talked about no more valley-by-valley conflicts. You've done a marvellous job in that -- I see all kinds of conflicts out there.

It's worrisome to me that anyone would stand up in this House and only talk about the bad practices -- and I'm not saying there weren't some -- and about how terrible it is in British Columbia. That's putting down our number one industry. The government we have today, the NDP, has done a remarkable job of trying to destroy what we enjoy in our forest industry. Not only are they doing a remarkable job while in government, but they did a remarkable job when they were in opposition. That's why we see the Premier and the Forest Alliance over in Europe trying to explain to them: "Hey, it's not all that bad.

You know, you should buy products from British Columbia." They've almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and they still haven't woken up. That's obvious by the remarks we get from every one of them.

We should go into the record a bit. I'm not saying that the record is perfect, and I'll guarantee you that the record of this government will not be perfect 20 years from now, either.

J. Pullinger: Nobody said it would.

R. Neufeld: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith says that nobody said it would. I'll tell you that that's certainly not what I read from them. They talk about everything being so great and wonderful and how everything is going to blossom under their administration. They want to hope that everybody's pocketbooks blossom, because that's what they're really into.

Let's look at the record. It took 50 years to plant one billion seedlings. Then from 1982 to 1989, seven years, there were another one billion seedlings planted. That's part of the record. From 1989 to 1992, three short years -- one of those years is part of the dark years that they've been in office -- they planted a further billion trees. That's part of the record. I know it's not perfect, but it's an awful lot of trees. In fact, British Columbia plants four trees for each tree cut, and it did so before these people came along. The survival rate is about 90 percent. That's not bad.

Instead of just saying that everything was bad, this is part of the record that this government should be talking about. In fact, as long as this government keeps the commitment made by previous administrations, all NSR lands will be replanted by the end of 1995. If only this NDP government would talk about some of the successes of the past and not just all of the failures, we might not have to be in Europe as much as we are, with the Premier trying to explain to Europeans and the Pacific Rim that they should buy our products because we do tend our forests.

The creation of another Crown corporation, which is happening, is definitely not needed to continue the work that's done in our forests today or to retrain the workforce. The member just before me talked about how the people of British Columbia should be giving the major companies more money out of the till to do more things in the forest. I think a bit differently. I don't think we should be creating a Crown corporation with -- how many? -- 16 directors right off the bat. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when this government promised change, they sure did it.

The NDP have given a new meaning to the phrase "friends and insiders," because I'm sure that that's exactly what's going to happen on that 16-member panel.

On top of that, you turn the page and it says, "The board may establish committees," and it gives the mandate and everything. Then it says, just below it: "...the board must establish 5 committees...." It doesn't say how. It can establish 15 or 20, but it's got to establish five. There is an undetermined number of people on those five committees. It's just a little ridiculous.

I think the forest companies should be the ones responsible for this work, because the price of lumber is up now -- no doubt about it. My goodness, we're bringing in a Forest Practices Code, are we not? In fact, that's coming soon. I thought that how we were going to manage the industry and how government was going to tell the industry what to do was going to be part of the Forest Practices Code. Why not in the Forest Practices Code? Could they not lay out the parameters of silviculture and enhanced silviculture, road regeneration and the putting to bed of roads -- whatever?

Why couldn't the whole issue dealt with in this bill be in the Forest Practices Code, to force companies to do that job? Those are the people who cut the trees down in the first place.

I can't for the life of me see why we would all of a sudden want to take most of the silviculture responsibilities and most of the worker retraining responsibilities away from those major companies, away from all forest companies and do them through a Crown corporation -- other than if they want to launder a bit more money through government. I don't know why. In fact, the forest companies that are out there should be responsible for retraining people who will lose their jobs because of some of the moves by this government to increase the parks and protected areas in British Columbia.

The forest companies that are enjoying profits today should retrain those people. If it's in jobs within their own companies, in enhanced silviculture, great! Or if it's in other jobs in the economy, good! I don't have any problem with that. But here we are with committee upon committee upon committee, and we're going to do that as government.

Not only that, take all of these committees -- five, six, ten, 15 or 20.... I don't know how many there are going to be, and I guess nobody else knows. We know there's going to be one main one, and that's going to be appointed by the cabinet. They're not going to work on a back street back here; they're going to need space. They're going to need support staff, erasers and pencils, and desks, chairs and computers; and they're going to have to be paid to travel -- all of those things.

When the government says that they're going to take $600 million out of the forestry revenue but only $400 million is going to go into planting trees, enhanced silviculture and those types of things, I guess the other $200 million is going to be spent on supplying offices, desks, computers and more bureaucracy and more members of the BCGEU -- you name it. The list goes on and on.

The other thing I think about is that the government talks about the Crown, and I guess this Crown will be treated no differently than the other ones in the province. It's going to have to pay a certain amount of revenue to support the government, just like B.C. Hydro and all of the Crowns do now. In fact, if you go to the records for 1991, Crown corporations and agencies paid about $500 million to general revenue. Look at it: in 1994, they are paying $1 billion. They've doubled it in just three short years. I guess another reason that we want another Crown corporation is so we can get a few more million dollars into that pot.

Yesterday the member for Nelson-Creston talked about money coming into general revenue just to get different governments elected. Obviously this was one of their silver

[ Page 10292 ]

bullets, which just fell out the end of the barrel. It hasn't worked too well. I don't know who that member was talking to, but people in my constituency are a little concerned. They agree with the concept. They have no problem with the concept of enhanced silviculture, but they have a bit of a problem with the way it's being done.

If you look at the amount of money that has come out of the Forest Service.... In fact, the member for Nelson-Creston talked about money being taken out of the Forest Service for election fever or just for general revenue, to be blown wherever. Well, let's just look at the forest sector a bit. In 1992-93 this NDP government took out $41 million into general revenue. In 1993-94 they took out $273 million into general revenue. In 1994-95 they're projecting to take out $441 million into general revenue. On top of that is the other $600 million that they're talking about with the BC Forest Renewal Act.

They talk in the act about putting forward a business plan, something similar to B.C. 21. Nobody today has seen a business plan for B.C. 21, yet they've expended massive amounts of money up until now. In fact, if we go back to 1993-94, we'll find where B.C. 21 was putting money into the forest sector to replant trees. For some reason, we were borrowing money to replant trees through B.C. 21, yet the forest sector had a net profit of $273 million. A lot of this doesn't add up.

We heard lots of talk about the small business forest enterprise program and value-added. I was on that committee, and I enjoyed being on it. When we started out, the NDP members -- not all of them, but most of them -- thought that the small business program was not working, that it was a bad program put together by a bad administration. As we travelled the province, we found that there were many people in the small business forest program who said it was working well. There could be some tinkering to change a few things, but I would say that on average most of them basically didn't have any problem with the program. It seemed to work quite well.

The member for Nelson-Creston said that only the majors get the wood. Well, certainly the majors get the major part of the wood, but he told only half the story. Some person out there making value-added products like spindles or doors and windows cannot use the whole range of forest. But he bids on a program for one or two years, or whatever. In fact, that was an issue with many of them, that it wasn't long enough; a five-year program wasn't long enough. But those small

value-added businesses couldn't use the whole range of wood out there, so naturally they had to trade with the majors. The majors are an important and integral part of the small business program.

[3:30]

The other issue they had was developing markets for their products. It's easy to say you can build four million widgets, but you have to sell them to somebody. You can't just make them, because if you can't sell them you can't afford to make them. Markets were the biggest problem. We also found that many of the major companies do an awful lot more in value-added than they're given credit for. The MacMillan Bloedels, the Canfors and the Weyerhaeusers do a tremendous amount of value-added.

The other issue was investment money. Grants? No, they don't want grants. But I see part of this new bill's mandate is: "...subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, provide financial assistance by way of a grant, loan or guarantee...." I thought I listened to this government about two and a half years ago talk about how terrible the last administration was with loans and grants. But what have we got in the new bill? Loans and grants.

Well, I'll tell you that with the price of lumber today, if somebody wants to get into a small business but can't go out there into the marketplace and put together a good enough program to show people who finance those kinds of programs that they can be successful, then I don't see why the people of British Columbia should finance them. I don't agree with that one bit. If there's money for research and development we can do some of that, and maybe a bit with marketing, but don't give grants to people to start businesses, because all they're doing is going into competition with some

value-added business down the street. It's no wonder that we have confusion out there.

In fact, it was interesting to listen to the minister talk about new markets. He happened to say that there is a brand-new market in Japan for component building products for housing. He should talk to the Slocan group. That's certainly not new; it has been going on for a long time. In fact, they do an awful lot of it in Quesnel -- and have done for quite a number of years. It's nothing new. Maybe it's new to the Forests minister. That wouldn't surprise me.

Then we listened to the former Forests minister from Prince Rupert talk about wood products in British Columbia being a bargain. It absolutely astounds me: every time one of those people gets up and talks, everything in British Columbia is a bargain. Walk out on the street and talk to the person who is earning wages and going to work in these industries, and ask if everything in British Columbia is a bargain. They're not going to confirm that -- of course they're not going to. Try going down and buying a 2-by-4. But that is how out of touch this government is. They may think it's not enough.

Maybe hydro rates aren't enough -- we're just going to increase them every year by 2 percent or 3 percent until we get it up to what seems to be the average or what's normal in, say, North America. Next thing you know, we'll have them saying that the price of gasoline should be the same in British Columbia as it is in Europe. Who knows?

There's freedom to move with that government in everything, and especially in taxation. They think there is no end to what people have in their pockets to pay, but let me tell you that the person on the street who is trying to raise a family, working for wages and paying 50 percent or better of his or her cheque to the government is not happy and will certainly not agree with the former minister, who said that wood products are a bargain.

Then we talk about bringing people together. I heard many of the members talk about bringing people together and what a wonderful job this government has done. Then we listened to the member from Prince Rupert, the previous Forests minister, put down the whole industry and call them a bunch of free enterprise nitwits. You wonder just where that government is coming from. Is that bringing them together?

Long before this government came along, workers and industry were starting to get together, because both sides, not just one, have learned that they can't continue in the confrontational spirit that they have had in British Columbia for many years. They have realized that if they're going to continue their work, if industry is going to be able to continue providing the jobs, they're going to have to get along. We're seeing that.

In fact, I was in Fort St. John recently at a trade fair, and a millwright for Canfor came up and talked to me for quite a while about how things are totally changing, and how they have been for many years. You can't just blame the big companies for what has happened in the industry and for all the layoffs. Corporate profits and high wages and benefits are to blame. There is a meeting of the minds with those

[ Page 10293 ]

people -- without government intervention from the NDP, who think they can solve everyone's problems.

While talking about bringing people together, I want to read a few quotes from the Vancouver Sun today, starting with the headline: "New Timber Fees Wrecking NDP, Forests Alliance: Decision Called Money Grab." All of a sudden, more things are coming out. I'm going to read verbatim from this notice in the Vancouver Sun. It comes from Peter Bentley, the person who stood with the Premier and the IWA and said how great a program this was.

"Peter Bentley, chair of Canfor Corp., characterized the government's decision to raise timber royalties by $100 million as a 'money grab' that took the industry by surprise.

"Bentley had been a strong industry supporter of the government's forest renewal plan, to the point of joining Premier Mike Harcourt and Forests minister Andrew Petter in Victoria on April 14 to announce the silviculture initiative. He even said the deal should be supported by all British Columbians.

"Monday he said: 'While the concept is a good one, it is imperative that the government act in good faith'."

I know that's a little tough for them, but "it is imperative that the government act in good faith."

"To fund the plan, the government announced stumpage increases that are expected to raise $600 million a year from Crown timber lands. But the royalty increase will push this year's total closer to $700 million. Bentley urged the government to reconsider the royalty hike."

So all of a sudden they're sliding another $100 million under the carpet. On top of that is the cost of the Forest Practices Code. That's unknown yet, but industry says it's going to cost a few hundred million. I think the government agrees with it, because in their last budget they budgeted some $74 million or $76 million to the Forests ministry to implement the Forest Practices Code. So it's going to be relatively expensive.

Another problem I have with the forest renewal plan is putting the money that's generated back into the regions. Coming from the north, I can tell you -- and it didn't matter one bit what administration was here -- that this one is no better than the last one when it comes to taking money out of the north and spending it in the south. I listen to people talk about how tough it's going to be on Vancouver Island, and how we can support Port Alberni and every other place on Vancouver Island in the forest industry. That's wrong, because the north devotes an awful lot of money to British Columbia.

In fact, I asked the Minister of Finance about a year ago, when it was pretty evident there was an awful lot of money generated in the oil and gas industry, to put a little back into the infrastructure. But no, they just took $169 million out of the north and put it towards their deficit. That's not right, and the people of the north are very afraid that the same thing will happen here.

I support the concept, but I cannot support the process. It will not work. I guess I understand why the forest industry would accept what's happening to them today, because an awful lot of the responsibility they used to have was taken away from them. That's not right. Those industries should be responsible for enhanced silviculture. All we have to do with the forest industry is lay out the parameters in the Forest Practices Code. I think this is a bit of a slap in the face to the people who work in the forest industry, because it looks as if they can't be trusted to look after the forest industry.

Is that what the Minister of Forests is telling the people in his ministry? "You can't do it. We're going to have a 16-member board, five other committees and five other whatevers look after it." Some very dedicated and good people are working in the Ministry of Forests. We should take advantage of that. We should be telling the forest companies what they should do and how they should do it. We shouldn't be loaning out money to start industries in opposition to others that are already there. We should put the responsibility directly with the industry that takes the trees out of the forests. I see my time is up.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to see you sitting up there. Maybe later on you'll welcome the opportunity to participate directly in the debate.

The Forest Renewal Act is well-intended, but no doubt, like everything else this government attempts or does, will not be managed properly. This bill is about control. It's about more control by this government, and we see evidence of it in every other ministry and field of endeavour that they undertake. There is more control and less accountability. This province certainly does not need more government control at this time, and it certainly demands far more accountability from government.

As all members know, this government manages a $19 billion operation. Sometimes I wonder why we're not bankrupt, when I see the lack of direction, the lack of a business plan and the lack of a game plan that this government continually demonstrates. I can see nothing in this forest renewal bill to change my mind that we're not going from bad to worse. I would submit that this bill is symptomatic of this NDP government, a government that seeks to control our lives and overregulate us. Unfortunately, as they endeavour to do those things they are also mismanaging our lives.

Let me cite a few examples that I, other members in the opposition and, more importantly, members of the public have observed. We speak on behalf of the public, of course. I don't know who this government speaks for other than their few friends and neighbours, the ones they appoint to every board and committee with every opportunity they have to place people of their own ilk in positions of power. What do we see happening in this province and in our society? If I may, I'll put the actual bill aside for the moment, but I will make reference to it in my other examples.

[3:45]

As one example, I would submit that we are facing a crisis in the management of education in this province. Public education is going through the throes of crisis almost. In fact, maybe it's not overstating it to say that. What do we see? We see the British Columbia Teachers' Federation warring with itself as to whether it should or should not sit down and negotiate with government. We see a government that is hinting at important issues such as provincewide bargaining, and yet we have no game plan. We have no idea what the implications of that are.

We see the British Columbia School Trustees' Association facing the unpleasant prospect of member districts having left it or announcing that they will leave it. We know that an employers' council has been structured, supposedly to deal with labour relations issues in education. But nobody in this province, at least not on this side of the House, has any sense of what that will be.

My point with that example comes back to my point about the Forest Renewal Act. It's an attempt to further impose management and control, yet there's no game plan. Forestry is far too important to this province -- just as education is -- for this government to tamper with it or to just gloss it over and pretend, with all the hype and the lockups and the news media and the releases, that legislation like this will be the answer. The industry was allegedly onside, and now we see evidence -- it's in the Vancouver Sun today, and another member referred to it -- that the industry

[ Page 10294 ]

is having second thoughts. I'll make some more comments on that later.

What we certainly do not need, as this bill illustrates, is more control by a government that doesn't have the managerial capability to control. We certainly do not need less accountability, which is why we legislators are here: to ensure that the public dollar is best spent. How in all honesty can we argue about accountability when you see the things that are contained in this bill?

Just before I get into some of the detail in the act itself and what's wrong with it.... It's well-intended, but many things that this government does are well-intended. They have the best of intentions, I'm sure. I'm not questioning the motives of this government; I'm questioning their lack of ability to carry out those motives.

Health planning. Let me for a moment make reference to the regional and local health planning that is going on. I've had occasion to attend meetings on the North Shore with many well-intentioned and community-minded people who gather monthly to discuss regional health planning. Quite frankly -- and I've talked to these people individually and collectively -- they don't have a real sense of what health planning is about. They want to participate, and they are doing so. They know that deadlines are looming in October. They have to have a plan in place for how the North Shore -- as just one health region

-- will be managed. Without the government's assistance to provide a true business plan -- and health planning is no less or more a business than any other.... We're talking in this bill about forestry, which is the number one economic generator in the province. But health planning is far too important for this government to tamper with in such a loose manner, as I'm indicating.

This is a statement that is coming from all over the province; it's not coming just from my communities in North and West Vancouver. Every member in this House -- and if the government were honest, it would admit to it -- is aware of demonstrated concerns. I'm hoping that members have the opportunity, as I have, to actually attend some of these meetings and see firsthand the hard work that people are putting into the health planning process. But with no game plan in mind, it's very difficult to reach the target and accomplish what this government says it's trying to accomplish.

We come back again to what Bill 32, which is before us now in second reading, is supposed to do. It talks about the renewal of the forest economy. That's certainly a well-intended statement. It talks about enhancing our productive capacity. That means things such as silviculture, which the industry knows is a vital component of its future. If this government is suggesting, through bills such as this and the Forest Practices Code, that the industry has learned nothing from the past and is incapable of managing its own future, then I submit that this government truly has no understanding of the importance of business.

Again I remind all members that forestry is the number one industry in this province. My colleague for Chilliwack would probably take issue with me on that, because he was telling me over lunch today that agriculture is actually number one. Maybe that is so; there's room for a debate another day. It is unfortunate, as all members will be reminded, that there was not one reference to agriculture in the throne speech this spring. So a major industry such as agriculture is ignored by this government. Now what do we see? We see all this tampering, I submit, with what is still the number one industry, forestry.

One other example, and then I'll get into some industry concerns that have been expressed to me. I'll also comment on the contents of the bill itself. The B.C. Trade Corporation has been in the headlines recently for some of the internal problems that it's had, though I won't comment on those. Again, I've had lots of people, including constituents in my riding, tell me that B.C. Trade is not realizing the mandate that the Premier and this government would tell us it is. I think we're going to be finding some specific evidence in the days ahead that B.C.

Trade is not the glorious and wonderful operation that the Premier would tell us it is. My argument is that that corporation is not being well managed. I fear that if Bill 32 goes through as proposed, with no amendments -- ideally it would be defeated, as we are arguing -- then we're going to have further mismanagement, and in the most important industry in this province.

Again it comes back to control. That's the mandate this government feels that it was given in 1991, but it is not. However, they are exercising more control and are certainly allowing less and less accountability within the structure of government. I remind all members that a $19 billion operation is not one to be lightly tampered with. I just wish, for the sake of all British Columbians, that the members opposite who have formed the government had more business sense and more of an idea what making a profit is and how important that is to British Columbians. Quite frankly, I don't believe they have those capabilities.

Let me just share with the members for a few moments, hon. Speaker, some of the comments that have been brought to my attention since this bill hit the floor. I am told by people in the industry, people who are in the business of supplying logs to mills and pulp mills, that log supply will be under severe attack by this bill -- and, of course, by the Forest Practices Code, which we have yet to see. So the industry, I can assure you, is unsettled over the availability of the annual allowable cut.

I do not feel -- and I'm not speaking alone; I'm speaking on behalf of the people in the industry who have shared this with me -- that the very important component of log supply is going to be in any way enhanced by Bill 32.

As I commented earlier, and as other members have made reference as well, we see on the business page of the Sun that Peter Bentley, one of the chief advisers on the committee that was structured last year.... I know some of the people on that committee personally, know how well-intentioned they are and how well they endeavoured to work together to produce some of the direction in forestry management that is certainly needed in this province. But what do we see today? Peter Bentley is having second thoughts about the extra $100 million grab that is now surfacing from this legislation.

So one day we have the captains of the forest industry standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier, applauding the legislation and, again, the well-intended vision and purpose stated in it; and now they're having second thoughts.

In fact, it reminds me, as members will remember, of one piece of legislation, the Labour Relations Code, that we spent two and a half months debating in the fall of 1992. Unfortunately, the people who would be directly affected by the Labour Relations Code did not fully appreciate the implications and some of the almost insidious nature and qualities of that bill. But they know it now, and they are voicing those concerns.

I know that the forest industry will be coming forward with other concerns, and certainly this government had better be listening. The number one industry in this province generates far more income for these people to waste and throw away as they please on skyboxes, cocktail parties to celebrate transit expansion and all this other nonsense

[ Page 10295 ]

that we see. They had better realize, if nothing else, that the social services, education and health delivery that are so important to all British Columbians rely on the forest industry, the agriculture industry and the other revenue generators. Through mismanagement, all it will mean is less revenue, and I'm afraid that that is what this bill will invite.

Let's examine the bill for a moment. I presume members opposite have read the bill. It's interesting to go through; it's not a lengthy bill. Of course, what lies behind it, in the regulations and, I think most significantly, in the power that is given to the executive council, is why I come back to my earlier comment about the lack of accountability. What do we see in this bill? We see that a new Crown corporation is formed. Isn't that just about the last thing we need in British Columbia -- another unaccountable Crown corporation controlled, as we also see in

section 3, by the executive council? The board of directors will be made up of one or more members of the executive council. There will be no more than 15 other directors, all of whom are appointed by order-in-council. So our blessed cabinet, of course, will be directly controlling a Crown corporation that will not be accountable to this Legislature.

I guess it would be fair comment to say that the Crown corporation that is formed will be no more accountable to this Legislature than the cabinet is. I do not see any great evidence these days of this cabinet's accountability. Sure, we have estimates, some of which, as we know, get put on hold for various reasons; hopefully, one day we'll get back to them. But back to this Crown corporation. Forest Renewal B.C. is an interesting little title. We have B.C. 21, and now we have Forest Renewal B.C. Next week it will be B.S. something else -- no, sorry, B.C. something else.

We don't need another Crown corporation that is not accountable to this legislative body. I submit that this is not the direction the forest industry should be taking -- not with this kind of control.

The mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. is set out in

section 4. My colleague from Chilliwack commented on this earlier today, but I wish to again draw it to members' attention. We are told in

section 4, under the mandate, that among other things, Forest Renewal B.C. will be entitled to enter into contracts with first nations, which is fine. All of us in this province recognize and applaud the efforts to give more validity to the claims of first nations and allow them to become a true partner in British Columbia's business and economy. But how does that fit into the treaty negotiations now taking place? As we know, there are over 40 tribal units already registered with the Treaty Commission, and more will register.

I do not understand, and it's certainly not explained in this very brief statement, how Forest Renewal B.C. contracts with first nations will in any way fit within the treaty negotiation process.

[4:00]

I would also refer the hon. members to

section 5. I'll be commenting in a moment about the main part of

section 5, but there is a reference in

section 5(3) to "...the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy." Again, we applaud that. All British Columbians recognize that as a valid purpose. But I submit once more: how does that fit within the purpose of treaty negotiations? We don't know that, and this bill does not address it. All it does is raise the prospect of possibly more confusion in that very important field of British Columbia life.

Before I get to

section 5, I've spotted another control item at the end of

section 4: Forest Renewal B.C. must comply with any general or special direction that is set out by order-in-council. Again our friends in cabinet will be setting out general or specific directions, and Forest Renewal B.C. must march to their orders. If I had any confidence in the cabinet, I guess I would be happy to see that that kind of control is in the legislation. But having no confidence in the cabinet, I'm afraid I have no confidence in the statement made in that section.

Section 5 -- committees. Well, here we are. Not only do we have another Crown corporation....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you that we are on second reading, which is basically the general intent of the bill. We do not take it apart

section by section. Please proceed.

J. Dalton: I respect that ruling, hon. Speaker.

Remember my main themes when I started: more control and less accountability. I see in one part of the bill that at least five committees will be established. What do we already have? We have a Crown corporation which we don't need, and now we're going to have at least five committees under that Crown corporation. Quite simply, that's going to produce more people at the trough. More NDP hacks will be appointed to these Crown corporations, boards, committees and agencies, and to do these studies. I don't know where it will end. I would have thought they would have run out of hacks by now.

They must be dipping into Nova Scotia by this time. They can't have any more in the western part of the country. I guess the people of Ontario don't know what to do. They don't know whether to flee from Bob Rae and come to this disaster or leave the country. However, I digress.

We don't need more committees. I again submit that more control is certainly not needed. In fact, I'm sure that British Columbians would applaud what the Liberal caucus has in mind. What we ultimately need in this province and country is less government, less control and fewer regulations, not more. Big government doesn't really do any great service to the average British Columbian or Canadian. The government has a mandate and responsibility to deliver the essential social services that we all enjoy and depend upon, such as education, health care and income assistance.

In fact, ideally we could probably stop right at that point and government could get out of our lives after that. But, no, not this government; it wants to interfere in our lives during every waking moment -- and every sleeping moment too.

I stand here and argue that what we don't need in our lives is more control, but when I look at this bill, unfortunately I see that it will mean more government control. I stand here and say that what we need in public life is more accountability as to how public dollars are spent. What do we see here? We see less accountability as to how our dollars are spent. This bill, even with the best of intentions, is unfortunately taking British Columbia in the wrong direction.

I will simply conclude by again stating that even though the NDP government of the day perhaps has good intentions -- when I look at some of the statements in the forest renewal bill, I can see good intentions reflected -- but I have no confidence whatsoever that those intentions will be manifested. So I, along with the others in the official opposition, have to stand and speak against this bill. Hopefully, some of the members opposite will at least tune in and realize that the path they and the government are on is a path to economic disaster.

D. Lovick: I don't normally make use of a lectern; indeed, I haven't done so in this chamber for about six or seven years. However, I was rushing madly to put some notes

[ Page 10296 ]

together, and for fear that I would lose them between the cracks in the desk, I decided to do so.

We're on second reading, the principle of the bill, and I want to confine my remarks to the principle. I also want to talk as much as I'm able about this bill and its aims, objectives and purposes, without much regard to the opposition. I don't intend to engage in partisan debate on this one, however much of a temptation strikes me. However, for clarification's sake, given that the member who just spoke spent considerable time on the subject of accountability, may I simply educate him in terms of what the bill actually does.

Accountability in this bill is ensured in three different ways. First, the broad goals and objectives for Forest Renewal B.C. are set out very clearly in the legislation. It isn't as if they're going to be decided by regulation. Second, the provincial government will be represented on the boards and committees of Forest Renewal B.C. and will be involved in planning and decision-making. Note that that is government -- any government, any time, not necessarily just this government.

It is ultimately, of course, government's role to protect the public interest rather than the committee's role or private industry's role. Third, the annual plan, the annual report and the financial statements will all be public documents. Moreover, the legislation requires the Minister of Forests to also table the agency business plan each year before the Legislature for review. To suggest that this measure before us somehow diminishes accountability in this province, I suggest defies credulity. It goes beyond any boundaries, it seems to me.

However, as I say, I do not come to engage in partisan debate today, and therefore I'm going to ignore much of what I heard. Instead I want to talk about the principle of the bill. When we talk about second reading of a bill and about the principle, there's an old joke that has been used in this chamber, Lord knows -- from the beginning, I suspect -- namely, how can I talk about this bill, because it has no principles. Yuk yuk, nudge nudge, wink wink, etc. This bill, curiously enough, is very much a bill designed to enunciate and embody a principle.

The fundamental principle that's embedded in the Forest Renewal Act, the measure before us, is one that today we all know, I think, without question -- though even ten years ago it was a phrase that nobody, frankly, would have identified. I'm referring to the phrase first quoted in the report that was produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. That's where the phrase "sustainable development" came from. The book, as we all know now, is called Our Common Future.

As defined in that book, sustainable development means essentially that we in the present generation have an obligation to treat the planet and its resources in such a way that future generations' demands on the planet will not be compromised. Development that allows room for the next generation to fulfil its legitimate objectives is then sustainable.

It's interesting to note that that concept of sustainable development is: (1) a new thing; and (2) very much in. In fact, a number of people have written that sustainable development is an idea whose time has come. That, of course, is an allusion to Victor Hugo and: "Greater than the might of armies is the strength of an idea whose time has come." I think I am correct, but if I'm wrong in my citation, Mr. Member, please let me know. That concept is so in that most of us have difficulty with it when we start to talk about implementation.

First, let us recognize why the concept is in. The reason the concept of sustainable development is in and why everybody claims to believe in it is simply that the evidence is so overwhelming. It is painfully evident that we, as a species, cannot continue to live as we have since the beginning of the industrial and technological revolutions. I want to quote an interesting book that came out only five years ago by Paul Ehrlich and Robert Ornstein called New World, New Mind. In that book they make the point -- and it's been made by a number of authors since -- that we are squandering in decades an inheritance that it took billions of years to assemble. And they're right; we are doing so.

A few years ago I wrote a paper that had to do with transportation. I made an observation that all public policy decisions we make today and in the future are going to have to be made in the light -- or perhaps the shadow -- of Brundtland. Nobody that claims to be responsible can any longer make public policy decisions that don't take into account the impact of those decisions on our environment. In short, there has to be what a good friend of many of us in this chamber, a man by the name of Dr.

Bill Rees at the University of B.C. -- the head of the planning school there, as I recall -- referred to as an environment-economy integration. That's the new economy. That's the new way of doing things in this province. In short, there is no question about what we ought to do as a matter of public policy. We know what we ought to do about the environment. The question, however, is what the political response to the environmental problem or environmental crisis is and ought to be.

I am pleased and proud to say -- and unreservedly will say -- that this bill is a political response to environmental crisis. It's gutsy; it's brave. About five years ago I made a speech at Malaspina College, where I used to work for some 15 or 16 years in another life. My speech was entitled, at that time, "The Political Response to Environmental Concerns." Predictably, Mr. Speaker, you as one politician listening to me as another politician will appreciate that I played with the double meaning of political -- the political response. We all know that in common usage, political means the chicken response. It's not really the right thing, but rather what you do in order to succeed.

I'm happy to say today that as a government we are making a political response to environmental crisis that isn't chicken and isn't doing what you can get away with, but rather is taking the gutsy and difficult decisions. Brundtland said -- back to that interesting book -- that in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will. Truer words was never spoke, as they say. Political will, however, is one of those unfortunate phrases that everybody wants a piece of, but we're not really sure what it means.

It's one of those things that every red-blooded American and Canadian kid will stand up and say: "Yeah, courage; that's what we need. Leadership; that's what we need. Political will; let's have some. Guts." Stuff like that. The trouble is that those who happen to agree with whatever is being said will tell us that we have guts and courage and we show leadership; those who disagree with us are more than likely to tell us that we're being dogmatic, tyrannical, undemocratic or unresponsive, etc. There's the problem.

[4:15]

I suspect that anybody who has ever reflected on the nature of politics and politicians must come to the conclusion that by definition it is very much preoccupied with the present, and it doesn't really have time to concern itself very much with the future, especially the distant future. That fundamental and obvious truth hit me with a resounding clunk one night, standing here in the Legislature a few years ago when we were having a late night sitting.

[ Page 10297 ]

Everybody was engaged in the debate, passions and tempers were high, and we were fighting about a cause that we all thought important at the time. I remember thinking, as I was sitting here in my place, that the issue we were debating was absolutely superficial and was begging the real questions that ought to be discussed and ought to come before this chamber.

The real questions, however, are ones that deal with the longer term. They don't deal with what we are confronted with today. As politicians, we are so busy coping with the crises of the present that we seldom take the opportunity to look at what lies beyond the horizon. That's a point made by Ornstein and Ehrlich in that wonderful book I quoted some minutes ago. I want to quote them again, if I might, because their words are instructive for all of us who serve in this chamber. They say: "Politicians are the ultimate creatures of the moment.

Their post confronts them with a constant stream of problems that must be solved now, without regard for the next year. At most, their time horizons reach until the next election."

I must say -- and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have the same response as I do -- that when I first read that I thought, how dare you say that about me as a politician. Of course I'm thinking about the future and the distant future. However, as I think we'll all agree on reflection, the point is that they're quite right. Let me quote them some more:

"As a result, politicians have little incentive to tackle or even identify and analyze long-term trends. Even if elected officials could perceive those trends, they are unlikely to be able to influence such slow events before the next election. And since their constituents can see only short-term caricatures, politicos garner little credit if they try to do something for posterity.

Better to wage a quick, clean war on something that has already registered on our minds, such as poverty or drug abuse, better to make bellicose speeches about the death penalty, or simply serve the day-to-day needs of the most powerful voters. That requires much less perspicacity than trying to solve long-term social problems and is much more likely to lead to

re-election. And re-election is what it's all about."

That may sound cynical, but it's absolutely correct, and let none of us apologize for the fact that re-election is what it's all about. The issue is: we need to get re-elected to do the good, noble and decent things we believe in, and therefore, by heaven, we'd better be smart enough in what we do to get re-elected. So no politician should apologize for being political.

The problem, however, is how we do the difficult things. How do we do things for the future, for posterity's sake, and still get elected by people whose horizon is more likely to be short term? It's the old story that we all have to do something for posterity -- but what did posterity ever do for me? That's the predicament. It hasn't done anything for us. All we can do is hope and conceptualize that a posterity is there and that we have obligations to it.

I took a position some years ago, when I made the speech at Malaspina College that I referred to -- I remember that I was an opposition MLA leading up to an election -- that we probably were not going to make it, because politicians and governments would likely be unable to find the courage to make those sorts of decisions. Thank God I was wrong. This government and this Minister of Forests have taken a step that I think is an amazing departure from tradition and a break from the past.

It's gutsy, it's innovative, it's exciting, and it just may give us a fighting chance to actually carry on a society and an economy in the next century. I didn't think governments could find that courage -- I truly didn't -- for all the obvious reasons.

The whole notion of how we relate to our environment in western civilization, and especially in North American civilization, argues against our doing anything like the BC Forest Renewal Act. We've grown up right from the beginning to believe that we had a conquering relationship with nature. We'd whip it into shape; we'd just get out there and fix it up. You see it in neighbourhoods all over the place. People move to the wilderness or the countryside, and the first thing you see is vinyl siding and asphalt and so forth in the middle of the bush.

It's that powerful impulse to conquer, to civilize, to tame and to subdue nature. That's the culture we've been brought up in. It even has a religious basis. We're told in the Bible to be fruitful and multiply, that humankind was given dominion over all creatures and that, demonstrably and obviously, we should go out and use it.

I want to be fair. Let's recognize that that muscular idea of what human life was about has produced some tremendous results. Western civilization is the most prosperous and the most material, because it has done what it was designed to do. The problem is that we have been playing a short-term game. We've been squandering our capital; we've been beating up on the planet instead of working with the planet.

So much of our culture is based on rugged individualism -- the notion of get out there and let business do it; let those entrepreneurs take the risks and fight the good fight -- that we've forgotten that maybe that mode of thinking is totally, completely and irrevocably outmoded. I'm suggesting that we can't afford that kind of thinking anymore.

We've taken our forests for granted for a very long time in this province. I think it's safe to say, and I don't think anybody in this chamber would disagree, that we're now paying the price. It has been obvious for at least a couple of decades. I don't blame any government, because we've all been in the same position: there's an incredible demand curve for more and more resources at the same time that we're wondering about supply. That's the predicament that every government in this province has faced and will face.

The predicament that we now recognize is that we are confronted with the prospect not only of fewer jobs but of fewer trees. In short, even if we went back to the old model and said, "Let's go into the next valley," we know we've only got about 20 years if we did that. We are not going to be able to carry on the way we have in the past. That's the crisis we face. The timber supply review -- another major initiative of this government and of the Ministry of Forests -- is coming up with evidence that suggests the harvests could decline by 15 to 30 percent over the next 50 years, unless we take some dramatic steps.

The government, I'm happy to report, has taken a number of what I would refer to as gutsy steps. Some difficult decisions have been made. We are vulnerable, because they are politically dangerous courses of action. Let me list them. Members opposite, if they're feeling in a combative mood, may well want to do what they often do, and suggest: "Aha! There's the evidence of what's wrong."

The protected areas strategy. We said that we have to protect certain areas even if it has a negative impact on workers and communities. The timber supply review is where we said: "We'd better find out how much we've got, so we know how much we can cut." The CORE process was pretty gutsy -- especially to give Stephen Owen and his committee free rein to come up with what they perceived to be the best land use plan for Vancouver Island. It's also pretty gutsy for this government not to run and hide from it but to say: "Here's the report. We're going to look at it, and we're certainly going to carry on with the broad mandate that Stephen Owen was given." To face 20,000 people on the

[ Page 10298 ]

Legislature lawn and make no apologies for Stephen Owen and that report was also pretty gutsy. Biodiversity guidelines.

Twenty-five years ago nobody in forestry knew what that meant. Today we're saying that maybe we can't log it the way we used to, because we may not be paying sufficient attention to values that we didn't even know were there. And then, of course, there is the Forest Practices Code. All of those things are working together for a long-term rather than a short-term interest, and all of them represent a clear and present threat to the status and the happiness of individuals today. That's politically courageous. The plan to renew our forests, the BC Forest Renewal Act, is just the end of a whole series of activities that this government has introduced.

The important point to recognize is that the primary emphasis of this legislation is not on the forest sector or on workers; it's on forests. That's an amazing jump, you know, because forests do not vote. But we are making forests and the land the primary player in the exercise. I am very proud -- indeed, I'm surprised -- that we have done what we have in this bill.

People in years to come are going to look at this measure and say that it was the moment in this province's history when we said that we were giving up the old conquering relationship to nature -- the one where we got what we could while we could, and future generations could look after themselves. Instead we're saying that we have an obligation to those generations to harvest our resources in such a way that the present may suffer so the future will benefit.

I think this is watershed legislation. I am truly looking forward to the process of committee stage, because I want to see all those questions answered that the members opposite have posed. I also want to see refuted -- as they should be -- some of the comments that I think are facile and not based on a close reading of the legislation.

How am I doing for time, Mr. Speaker? Will you give me some idea? I've only been here seven years, and I always forget to check my watch. It's one of those bad habits of mine.

Deputy Speaker: Eight minutes yet.

D. Lovick: Thank you. Okay, I can indeed, then, talk about a couple of the more specific parts of this bill. I wanted to....

An Hon. Member: I think he said two minutes.

D. Lovick: My colleagues are telling me it's only two minutes, as opposed to eight. Thank you very much, colleagues. I appreciate that vote of confidence. Happily, senses of humour still live in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister was introducing this bill, he said that this represented an unprecedented partnership, and he's absolutely right. We have not seen a partnership of this kind ever, I think, in this province's history. I know that sounds a little hyperbolic, but I think it's true. I don't think we have ever seen people who are normally adversaries, who function in an adversarial relationship, standing together and saying yes, we must in fact all compromise and give up something. It's remarkable.

It's also worth noting that the minister made the point -- and it's probably the crucial one to corroborate and emphasize the point I've been trying to make -- that this is a long-term investment. It isn't a short-term thing. There is no political gain in this, quite frankly, for the short term. What that means, of course, is that it's foolish to try to measure this bill and what it sets out to do in terms of how many jobs will be created. As I said earlier, the fundamental focus, the primary ingredient, in this legislation is the forests.

Obviously, all those who are involved in the forest and who earn their living by it rank very high, but most of all we're concerned with ensuring we still have a forest in the future.

[4:30]

It's therefore a bill that involves some fundamental changes. Let me just list a few of them, if I might, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of priorities that the BC Forest Renewal Act sets for itself. The first, of course, is the whole concept of renewal: to take the forests and ensure that we will have them in the future. Nearly

one-half of the forest renewal plan investments will go to improved reforestation and tending of our forests. This bill allows for the increase of lands available for forest, for forest harvesting and for the planting of new trees. This bill provides for research and development in improved silviculture practices. That's just the first priority.

The second priority is to restore and protect the environment. That's the larger construct, the environment, as separate and distinct from forest. We're talking about cleaning up the damage that's been done. I logged 30-odd years ago in this province, and I can tell you that at that time nobody thought about streams. Streams were something that you felled logs into so you could get across them more easily, and we used high-lead logging in those days. Today we're talking about cleaning up that kind of damage.

We're recognizing that those streams are important and significant and indeed renewable, valuable resources. We're talking about protecting fish and wildlife. We're talking, moreover, about research into environmentally sound logging practices, as opposed to the bad old days.

The third priority is about making significant policy changes that will strengthen our plan. For example, we're going to make better use of forests. We're going to use the full range of forest types, of different materials to harvest. In other words, instead of going in and monocropping or creaming, we're actually going to look at harvesting some other crops that we didn't think had commercial value. We're going to see about finding those other values and using them. We're talking about better use of every tree.

We're talking about giving the little salvage operators access to wood that they certainly never had in my days, many years ago in the industry. We're talking about commercial thinning, something the Norscan countries have been doing very well for decades.

The fourth priority is creating more value in what we harvest and also strengthening communities. We're talking about the need to get more jobs and value from every single stick we cut. We're talking about assisting value-added companies. By the way, the measures of this bill are friendly to business and commercial development in this province as well. We're talking, moreover, about research and development in value-added activities. We're talking further about investing in forest worker training.

We're talking about first nations participation, to give first nations people the sense of dignity, purpose and worth -- and dollars in their pockets -- that will enable them to play a meaningful and significant role in our economy and society, the kind of role they've been arguing they wanted to play for many long years. We're talking, moreover, about strengthening communities that rely on forests and that had a very difficult time -- they've taken a beating -- in the last decades.

This measure is radically different from the past. We're talking about a measure in which all the players are involved. All the interest groups have been consulted. All the interest groups are onside, save one. The only interest group

[ Page 10299 ]

that doesn't seem to be onside -- and I choose my words carefully, because some of its spokespersons appear to be supporting the measure and others seem to be suggesting they're not going to support it.... I'm referring, of course, to the official opposition.

I just say to those members that they too ought to consider what I quoted earlier, in terms of the short horizon of politicians. I think that just as governments have to recognize they're in it for the long term, so do oppositions have to recognize that maybe they ought to let go of the short-term political advantage, and talk about supporting the government when it deserves support and choosing real targets to speak against.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's difficult when talking about this BC Forest Renewal Act to choose just exactly which of the qualities one wants to talk about, because it is a very positive act.

An Hon. Member: There are so many.

Hon. A. Edwards: That's exactly it. The member across the way says that there are so many positives about it, that's why I have difficulty. But I have decided to limit my discussion to three phrases that I think are key to what we hope to achieve and what can be achieved with this act. They are that this legislation represents a new approach, a cooperative approach and a positive approach.

It's new in the way that it came together. It's new in that it takes the long-term view, as the previous member, the member for Nanaimo, pointed out.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Certainly I'm going to take the opportunity to quote, as has been done previously a number of times. Peter Bentley, the chair of Canadian Forest Products, says: "It's the first instance I'm aware of in my 45 years in the industry of any provincial government coming up with a plan that goes beyond the political cycle between elections." That's definitely new. Mr. Bentley says further: "It's the first time that this province has committed to reinvestment in the forest land base, and I think all foresters and environmentalists should rejoice in that."

An Hon. Member: Rejoice!

Hon. A. Edwards: I didn't choose the words. These words were from the forest sector on the day it was announced. It was the same day that we had this kind of response from Vicky Husband of the Sierra Club. This is a major step in the right direction.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Edwards: Everyone is awake today, hon. Speaker; everyone is really there.

George Watts of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council said: "I've reviewed every resolution that Indian bands have made since the 1970s, and this plan is consistent with all of them." These are statements of clear support from a wide range of people and interests. Therefore it's interesting to look at it as a cooperative venture. It will allow us to look at what we hold in common and to approach it with a cooperative mood and cooperative activities.

In order to get a sense of the direction and common goals that we have, I refer to the purpose of the bill: "The purpose of this Act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers., and strengthen communities." That is something we all hold in common, and it is a tribute to the framers of this bill and this initiative that it will be approached in a cooperative way.

Finally, it is a positive bill, and that is fairly new around this place. Sometimes one wonders if there is any positive bone in anybody around here anymore, but there are lots of positive things in this bill. It's good for the ecology of the forests, the lands and the rivers; it's good for the economy; and it's good for democracy. I want to talk about those three things in order.

An Hon. Member: Democracy?

Hon. A. Edwards: One of the members across the way doesn't seem to know what democracy is about. I hope he's listening when I discuss it.

First, I want to talk about the lands, forests and rivers, and the fact that this bill reflects a passionate regard for those things -- the kind of passion expressed by the member for Nelson-Creston yesterday afternoon, and in various ways by a number of members in this House. It's a passion that is held not only by members from the rural ridings but also by members from the urban ridings. Part of modern activity is to recognize the passion that we have as Canadians. It's almost a Canadian nature to care about our forests, lands and rivers. This bill is very much an expression of that.

It is also an expression of another characteristic of Canadians, that of common sense. This bill makes the kinds of commonsense compromises that will make it successful. This bill looks at using the skills that we already have to do something different: to expand the resource and the impact the resource can have on our economy. It talks about using what we have on an appropriate scale, so that we don't have some grandiose idea that goes far beyond what we will ever accomplish. Therefore this bill represents the kind of common sense that is another characteristic of the Canadian psyche.

When we go beyond the ecology, we go to the economy. We have to see that the benefit it gives our economy is represented by the fact that there is a broad understanding that the status quo is simply not sustainable in our forests. That understanding is very clear in a number of groups. Workers, corporations, communities, first nations, environmentalists and the government know that the current practice is not sustainable. All of those bodies have clearly been here, because they know that it's not sustainable to go ahead. Therefore they're willing to work with groups that they don't usually work with.

Only when the goal is enough to overwhelm their disagreements can these groups come to an agreemen