2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Cridge Centre for the Family

S. Orr

Ship repair industry

A. Hamilton

Privatization of passenger rail service

K. Krueger

Oral Questions

Citizens' assembly and recall legislation

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Post-operative care beds

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

New hospital for Abbotsford

J. Les

Hon. G. Campbell

Child care funding

S. Orr

Hon. L. Reid

Science and technology in B.C.

P. Sahota

Hon. R. Thorpe

Attraction of skilled workers to B.C.

D. Hayer

Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. J. Murray

R. Visser

W. Cobb

P. Bell

V. Roddick

B. Belsey

B. Bennett

R. Harris

R. Hawes

D. MacKay

[ Page 4335 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest

from Korea. Park Jong-ki is the newly appointed consul general of Korea at

Vancouver. He is visiting Victoria to make official calls on the government. The

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has just concluded a meeting

with the consul general and looks forward to strengthening economic ties with

Korea. Consul General Park is accompanied by Consul Han Gwang Sup. Please join

me in giving them a very warm welcome to our Pacific province and to this

Legislature.

[1405]

MacPhail: I'm fortunate to be able to make two greetings today. They are

people that have been out fighting the corporate agenda, doing everything they

possibly can to bring that corporate agenda to their knees. They've had success,

and they're back with us — thinner, hungrier and eating big breakfasts: Les

Leyne and Judy Lavoie from the Times Colonist . Please welcome them back.

Mr.

Speaker, I do recall bringing to your attention an issue of great urgency a

little while ago about the water, and I'm not sure you had a chance to do

anything about it. The drought probably overtook the necessity of you

investigating anything. The rains have come, and someone is pregnant. We have a

problem here. Please, please do something. We have Justine Hunter, who is now

pregnant, and it's time, Mr. Speaker, before it gets to you.

Mr.

Speaker: I only wish I wasn't past that possibility.

Hon. M.

Coell: I have two guests in the gallery today, and I hope the House will

make them welcome: Miranda Street, who is a grade 9 student at Claremont

Secondary, and her mother, Wendy. Would the House please make them welcome.

Sultan: In the galleries today are approximately 49 grade 6 students, 12

parents and several teachers from West Vancouver's Ridgeview Elementary School,

led by Mrs. Kerry Fairburn, Ms. Jessye Labaj and the past PAC chair, Kim

Hamilton. Our community is very proud of the writers club, the Ridgeview

Dragons, the anti-bullying program and the citizenship skills taught at this

school. Would the House please make these wonderful young Canadians welcome.

Hon. C.

Clark: Today 75,000 workplaces across Canada are participating in the ninth

annual Take Our Kids to Work Day, a career exploration program developed by The

Learning Partnership. That's a national organization that's dedicated to

strengthening public education across the country. There are 400,000 grade 9

students and their parents participating in that. I won't introduce all of those

today — just the four that are here with us in the gallery. Would the House

please welcome, from the Ministry of Education, Hilary Brown and her son,

Richard Lussier, and Paul Lukaszek and his daughter, Emily. They are accompanied

by Nell Ross, who's also from the ministry. I hope the House will please make

them all very, very welcome.

Sahota: I'd like to introduce to the House my hard-working and dedicated

legislative assistant, Frank Costa. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to welcome again my wife, Joy, to the House,

accompanied by her son and my stepson, Grant Langill. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a number of my staff

who are here to receive their long-service awards. With us today are Linda

Sawatzky and her husband, Jake; Cheryl Gore and her son, Reid; Marney James and

her husband, Rob Thomson; Steve Venables; Mark Aiyadurai and his wife, Ruth; and

Martin Sills and his wife, Julie. I would ask the House to make them all

welcome.

[1410]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CRIDGE CENTRE FOR THE FAMILY

S. Orr: I'm

not the sort of person that normally gets cross. I think I'm pretty

even-tempered, actually. I sit here and do my job. But I'm really cross today,

and I'll tell you why. Yesterday the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant posed

a question to the Minister for Women's Equality in which she said, and I quote

the piece: "Can the minister explain to parents who rely on the Cridge

Centre why she's forcing it to close its child care facilities?"

Now, the

Cridge is in my riding, and I service my riding well. I work with these people

all the time, and I can tell you again that this member has her facts wrong. The

Cridge is not closing its doors. It has no intention of closing its doors. It's

129 years old, and if Bishop Cridge and his wife heard this conversation, they

would roll over in their graves.

I can tell

you that the organization is working with all the stakeholders, and they're

working with government. They work with me pretty well every other day. If only

the member had done her research, she wouldn't have said what she said and

caused the grief that she caused the executive director, who spent all morning

fielding off the press, and damn it, he should

[ Page 4336 ]

be at that centre working with the children. It's absolutely unacceptable.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has the floor. Order.

SHIP REPAIR INDUSTRY

Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, you may not have heard this before, but I have more

good news — good news not only for my community but for all of British

Columbia. I'm proud to announce today a new era in ship repair for the Esquimalt

shipyards. The Esquimalt Drydock Co., a local company, has been successful in

being awarded a $13.8 million ship repair contract to refit the Lazaro

Cardenas II , a 44,000-tonne refuelling tanker from Mexico. This contract

will result in $8 million in local labour and $2.8 million in local supplies

going straight into our economy. The daily employment levels will be in the

range of 175 people.

This

is the largest non-governmental ship repair contract in the drydock in the past

ten years and indicates a new era and the ability of Canadian firms to compete

in the world market. The local shipyard was up against six other overseas

shipyards and was the successful bidder. This is a great benefit not only for my

community's economy but for all of greater Victoria. This clearly shows that our

shipyards are competitive and can compete with anyone in the world.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who is being heckled by

his own members.

PRIVATIZATION

OF PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Krueger: Much has been said recently about the government's decision to

focus on the core services of the BCR and relinquish the role of providing

passenger service. Various pundits would have us believe that people of the

interior are furious about the change. I've lived in the interior all my life,

including many years in the Peace River country and Prince George. I can vouch

that interior people are sturdy folk who do not expect others to pay their way

and tend not to believe that government can provide services more efficiently

than the private sector.

When the

BCR was extended north of Fort St. John, the new line ran through my family's

homestead — 1,600 acres near a tiny place called Buick. I remember as a kid

watching a Budd car pass through our farm while I was out grouse-hunting and

waving to W.A.C. Bennett as he stood at the back of it. The coming of the rail

line to our area was a huge positive for the farmers, but we always expected our

use of the service to pay its own way. We never thought government should rob

from its other priorities like health care, education and public safety to

subsidize rail service.

[1415]

To those

who don't think the private sector can do the job, I offer the example of the

Great Canadian Railtour Co. In the eighties Via Rail had a shabby service which

ran through the Rocky Mountains in the middle of the night, contributed little

to the local economies and lost public money hand over fist. Via wanted out of

the business. People objected, but it made its exit.

Along came

entrepreneur Peter Armstrong with the train called the Rocky Mountaineer .

He runs it in the daytime, when tourists can admire the brilliant beauty of our

province. He overnights it in Kamloops, where we long since passed 40,000 hotel

rooms per year as a direct benefit.

Our

restaurants and entertainment venues thrive on it. People come back to visit

because the Rocky Mountaineer introduced them to what B.C. offers. I look

forward to what the entrepreneurial spirit creates to replace the BCR passenger

service, which has hemorrhaged public funds for decades. The Great Canadian

Railtour Co. has demonstrated that free enterprise can do much better.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY AND

RECALL LEGISLATION

MacPhail: To the Premier: why do Gordon Gibson's terms of reference for the

citizens' assembly make no reference to seeking public input on recall?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The issue that Mr. Gibson has been asked to deal with is the issue

of governance — whether we should have the first-past-the-post system, whether

we should have proportional representation, whether we should have runoff

ballots. That's fundamental to the constitution of British Columbia. We wanted

to make sure he was focused on those issues for that agenda. He will be, and he

will have a report out before the end of this year.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: In February the Premier told the House that the citizens' assembly

would seek public input on recall legislation. The Hansard record is

here. I know the Liberals have lost a lot of support since that time.

Can the

Premier tell us if that's why he's breaking his promise that he made in February

to seek public

[ Page 4337 ]

input on recall through the citizens' assembly? The Hansard record is

here.

Hon. G.

Campbell: No. We think the citizens' assembly is a critical part of the

government reform package that we initiated when we were elected. We believe

it's important that you focus on the issue of how we elect our elected

representatives. In discussions with the Attorney General and with people

looking at how we can have a viable, constructive public dialogue and debate

with regard to how we do that, we felt it was important that we limit the terms

of reference for Mr. Gibson. That's what we have done, and his report will be

prepared for the people of British Columbia by the end of this year.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, then one wonders what the Premier meant to say in February

when he said the issue of recall would be referred to the citizens' assembly.

The Hansard record is there. In Delta, citizens from all political

backgrounds and from all walks of life will soon launch the recall campaign

against the member for Delta South because they were not told the truth about

the cuts to the Delta Hospital.

The

citizens themselves would like to know if the Premier intends to keep his

new-era promise. Here's the promise: to "establish workable recall

legislation to make it easier for the citizens to hold MLAs accountable."

He promised

that in February; now he's giving them the runaround. Will the Premier keep his

promise made in this chamber on February 25 and now ask the citizens' assembly

to seek input and provide recommendations to make the recall of MLAs easier?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The terms of reference for Mr. Gibson have been set, and he is

proceeding with that. I can tell the member opposite this: I do believe it's

important that we review the issues of recall and referenda legislation. Unlike

the previous government, I can tell you that this government will deliver on

that commitment to the people of British Columbia.

[1420]

POST-OPERATIVE CARE BEDS

J. Kwan:

In August Jenny Brown fell and fractured her hip. Ms. Brown is 83 years old. She

lives in Kelowna. Her daughters live in White Rock and Sidney. As a result of

the Liberal cuts to beds in Kelowna General and to the extended care beds, the

hospital had no place to put Ms. Brown only a week after her surgery, so they

discharged her by ambulance to a private facility. Seven weeks later she

received a bill for $6,000 for her post-operative care.

To the

Minister of Health, will he agree to cover the cost for Ms. Brown's

post-operative care?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I will take the question on notice.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

J. Kwan:

I'll save the minister the trouble. The daughter of Ms. Brown had actually

written to the minister on September 10, outlining the case.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon.

member, the minister has taken the question on notice. You should put a new

question.

J. Kwan:

It is a new question, Mr. Speaker.

The letter

was written to the minister on September 10 about Ms. Brown's case. Ms. Brown's

daughter has written to the Minister of Health Services, the Minister of Health

Planning, the Premier himself and her local MLA, but no one bothered to answer.

Ms. Brown cannot afford the $6,000 private post-operative care she's now having

to pay. Her daughter received instructions from Ms. Brown's doctor, who said

what her mom needed is to ensure that she receives extended hospital care in a

rehab centre within a hospital setting or extended care. She received none and

was sent to a private facility.

I would

like to know from the minister how that scenario for Ms. Brown fits the promise

of the new-era commitment, where you get it when you need it for health care

services. How does that fit the directions Ms. Brown's daughter received from

her doctor for her mom's health care services?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Officials in my ministry tell me I get 28,000 letters a year. I do

try to read as many of them as I possibly can, particularly when they profoundly

affect the care of an individual. We try to make sure those issues are dealt

with as quickly as possible. I did take the question on notice. If the member

has any additional information she would like to provide to me, I would be

pleased to look into it as quickly as possible.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

NEW HOSPITAL FOR ABBOTSFORD

J. Les:

My question today is to the Premier. For more than a decade the residents of the

Central Fraser Valley and the community of Abbotsford have been waiting for a

new hospital to be built in their community. This new hospital was announced and

reannounced numerous times by the previous government, but unfortunately, it was

never built. The current health care facilities in that region are stretched to

their limit. With the rapidly expanding population, it's becoming an urgent

need.

[ Page 4338 ]

Can the

Premier commit to the residents of the Central Fraser Valley and the community

of Abbotsford that this hospital will actually be built?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I understand the concern that people in the Fraser Valley would

have. The previous government committed to build this in 1993. They pulled that

commitment in 1995. They committed in….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The previous government made a number of commitments which they

then pulled back on, on a number of occasions. I want the member to understand

this. This government will be building a Fraser Valley health centre that will

meet the needs of the Fraser Valley and the people in that region of our

province.

CHILD CARE FUNDING

S. Orr:

I would like to ask a public….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order.

S. Orr:

I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Margaret Robb, who is

the community partner member of the Regional Child Care Council of the capital

regional district, to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

The

question is: given that B.C. has received federal government dollars for early

childhood development and that the Minister of State for Women's Equality and

the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development have stated publicly that

50 percent of this year's money would go to child care, when will the Minister

of State for Early Childhood Development implement a plan, release the money and

make her actions accountable to the public?

Hon. L.

Reid: The Minister of State for Women's Equality and I are advancing a

cross-government integrated strategy for early childhood development. I can tell

you that what the province…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. L.

Reid: …contributes to child care is $150 million annually. The national

children's agenda funding is $291 million over five years. Indeed, those

investments combined over the term of this government will be well in excess of

a billion dollars.

S. Orr:

I would like to follow up with a question of my own to the Minister of State for

Early Childhood Development. As part of the national children's agenda, the

federal government agreed to provide British Columbia with $291 million for

children's services. In turn, B.C. agreed to provide annual reports on where it

spends these dollars.

Can the

minister tell us what services will benefit from this agreement and when the

government expects to release the report?

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm delighted to respond to this question. This member and members of

this House will know that this information is available on our website and has

been for many months. We have met our reporting requirements to the federal

government. We have produced a baseline report that indeed the hon. minister,

federally, has been delighted to receive. Our baseline report has been available

for many, many months. Our annual report will be available this fall.

We are well

within the reporting requirements for the federal government on behalf of

British Columbia. Frankly, individuals today are delighted with the information

that's contained in documents that we have produced through our ministry. We

have the British Columbia Early Childhood Development Action Plan: A Work in

Progress . That material is readily available.

The

commitment we have taken as government is to be as transparent as possible. The

actual dollar value of each of the programs we fund is available, is on our

website and is in the document. I invite the members to peruse it as their

leisure.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN B.C.

Sahota: Last month….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

Sahota: Last month the Science Council of British Columbia presented awards

to honour outstanding achievements by the province's scientists, engineers and

industrial innovators. In the New Era document the government committed

to developing the fastest-growing technology industry in Canada.

Can the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, who I understand was a

presenter at this year's dinner, tell us what initiatives the government is

taking to establish B.C. as a world leader in the field of science-based

technology?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I was very pleased to represent the Premier and our government at

the Science Council's annual awards last week. It's always exciting to meet the

science leaders of British Columbia, the leaders of

[ Page 4339 ]

today but, more importantly, our students, the leaders of tomorrow in our

science community.

In April,

in partnership with the private sector, our government made an announcement of

putting $45 million in a leading-edge endowment fund to create 20 chairs for

scientific research. In May, in partnership with the federal government and the

private sector, we announced a $28 million contribution towards a new B.C.

Cancer Research Centre. We are also committed to Genome British Columbia.

[1430]

I know that

the steps our government is taking in partnership with the private sector, the

research community, our post-secondary institutions and the federal government

are going to make British Columbia a global magnet for life sciences.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has a supplementary question.

Sahota: At the Science Council awards dinner, Denis Connor, the executive

chairman of QuestAir, won the Science and Technology Champion of the Year Award.

QuestAir is a company that is successfully developing fuel cell technology, and

my constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds is home to QuestAir. We know B.C. is home to

some of the world's most successful companies in developing fuel cell

technology, so can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us

what steps the government is taking to improve our competitive advantage in this

field?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Last week Dr. Denis Connor did receive a very exciting award for his

work of championing science and research here in British Columbia. British

Columbia has already been identified as a global leader in fuel cell research,

with Ballard and QuestAir being here. The Premier's Technology Council has

identified four pillars we should move forward on, and fuel cell research is one

of those.

In June of

this year I joined the federal Minister of Industry and announced a $6.5 million

contribution for fuel cell demonstration projects here in British Columbia.

British Columbia today is the home of the fuel cell industry for Canada. British

Columbia will lead the world in the development of fuel cell technology.

ATTRACTION OF SKILLED

WORKERS TO B.C.

D. Hayer:

My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Recently the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for

immigration met to discuss a new partnership on immigration. Having a diverse

population is perhaps one of B.C.'s greatest strengths, and in today's global

marketplace, being able to attract skilled workers from around the world is

crucial to the economic growth of B.C.

Can the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services update us on the results

of the meeting and on what strategies are taking place to attract skilled

workers to our province? Many new immigrants of British Columbia face barriers

in being able to participate in the labour market. Can the minister also advise

us what steps are being taken to assist new immigrants to overcome these

barriers?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We did have a very productive meeting of immigration ministers from

across the country, including the federal minister. One of the things we

certainly have in common across all jurisdictions is that as a society, we're

getting older, and we are going to be increasingly looking to new immigrants to

be the vehicle for economic growth in the twenty-first century.

The other

thing that was very clear from our discussion is that we have emerging and, in

some cases, current skills gaps across the country. In some parts of northern

Saskatchewan and northern Ontario, those in the medical area are particularly

acute. Fortunately, while we have some, ours are not as acute here. The ways in

which we can address them are numerous, and we discussed a number of them at the

conference. We have a provincial nominee program that is now up and running with

over 200 applicants, and many of those have filled critical skills needs in the

medical area in different parts of British Columbia.

We are also

going to be looking in common with other parts of Canada at the foreign students

that are being trained here. What we want to do is alert them to job

opportunities, professional opportunities across British Columbia, and we're

confident that once they know about the great promise and future that exist here

in British Columbia, they will be an important part of filling our future skills

and professional needs. I think it's a win-win for our society and for the new

immigrants as well.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call adjourned second reading debate on Bill 74.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

(continued)

Hon.

M. de Jong: Last day, I attempted for the benefit of members to review in

part some of the considerations that gave rise to the preparation and

presentation of Bill 74 earlier this week. I want to spend a little bit of time

today pointing out some of the features of the bill, this new results-based

legislative framework and, in particular, to draw attention to what really

represents the cornerstone of this new planning process — a planning process

which admittedly is designed to focus in on measuring on-the-ground results and

forgoing

[ Page 4340 ]

some of the incredibly suffocating bureaucracy and paperwork demands that

accrued under the existing Forest Practices Code regime. That cornerstone

document is the forest stewardship plan, and for the majority of licensees, that

will be the document — that one comprehensive, all-inclusive plan — which

sets out in detail the activities they intend to pursue over a five-year period

on the land base to which they have entitlements as licensees.

I should

say, first of all, that we have purposely in this plan legislated the

requirement that there be identifiable, measurable and enforceable results. This

really goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve and, I think, will

achieve by virtue of this legislation.

The term of

the plan is five years. It is the plan — that is, the forest stewardship plan

— which must be approved and signed off by government. That becomes in this

regime a fundamentally important exercise, because it represents that single

point at which approvals are obtained from the Crown — ultimately from the

people that own the resource, the people of British Columbia — via the

government and via the Ministry of Forests and the Forest Service.

It is for

an initial term of five years, and it is renewable for a further period of five

years. But that, of course, is conditional, as one might expect, on the

objectives of the plan, the results of the plan having been achieved and the

licensee having complied not just with the plan but with all of the other

legislative requirements and obligations that flow from practising forestry in

British Columbia.

That forest

stewardship plan — and I want to disabuse anyone of any contrary notions —

is going to manage for those values that British Columbians have said loudly and

clearly are important to them. It is going to manage and set guidelines and

results as it relates to soil. It is going to manage and set results that must

be achieved as it relates to water — water quality, water protection, the

protection of inputs around community watersheds and water supplies. Those

protections will be there both statutorily and by virtue of the forest

stewardship plan. Wildlife, species at risk, biodiversity — we will have

outcomes that are required statutorily, and they will be further addressed and

refined within the confines of this forest stewardship plan.

Visual

qualities are another value that we will be managing for, and cultural heritage

resources. These are clearly enunciated and will be features not just of the

statutory regime, but by virtue of their presence in the forest stewardship

plan, they acquire the standing of legal obligations, and to run afoul of or

fail to abide by or achieve the results as set out in that forest stewardship

plan represents an abrogation of a licensee's legal obligations.

[1440]

That forest

stewardship plan, of course, does not exist and will not exist in isolation from

some of the other obligations that exist for people wishing to operate on the

land base. The forest stewardship plan must be consistent with local land use

plans, with higher level plans. The forest stewardship plans don't exist in a

vacuum. They set out obligations — that is, obligations that accrue to the

licensee — in a way that says not only must they meet those specific tests;

they must meet those tests in a way that is consistent with those land use

plans.

Of course,

the forest stewardship plans must be consistent with objectives set by the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, particularly as they relate to

things like species at risk. In fact, I am going to say here today that I

believe that under this regime, there is better protection afforded to species

at risk than what we presently have under the existing prescriptive Forest

Practices Code.

There is

another feature of the development of this forest stewardship plan that I want

to spend a bit of time on today. It is, candidly, something that I have heard a

degree of criticism on, and I think that criticism emanates from a certain

misunderstanding. The legislation has only been out for a couple of days. I am

going to take advantage of this opportunity to try to provide some additional

information that relates to the workability and workings of the legislation.

particular, I want to tell people across this province, who have expressed over

the past number of years by their words and deeds their profound desire to be

involved in land use planning and in activities that take place on the land base

that they own as British Columbians, that they are going to be involved. There

is specific provision made for public involvement, for public input. In fact,

that will be a requirement of the forest stewardship plan before it can be

approved. Before it can receive that stamp of approval from the Crown, from the

decision-maker, there must be evidence submitted that reasonable accommodation

and opportunity have been afforded to interested members of the public so that

their views can be taken into account.

shouldn't dismiss in any way, shape or form the extent to which British

Columbians are interested in providing that input. A key feature of this

legislation, this statutory framework, is to say loudly and clearly to British

Columbians that their input and involvement is not only welcome; it is, in fact,

essential. It is a requirement. For us to continue along the path to

revitalizing our beleaguered forest industry after ten years of public policy

mismanagement, we need British Columbians to be involved, and we want them to be

involved.

That same

sentiment, that same belief, exists with respect to the involvement of first

nations, who have their own profound set of challenges, expectations and desires

to be involved in the forestry economy in ways that, thus far, they simply have

not been. I'm actually proud to be a member of a government that has said

explicitly that we have set as a goal for ourselves the establishment, by

working cooperatively in concert with first nations, of specific economic

development opportunities to provide first nations and people in first nations

communities with the opportunity to get involved.

[1445]

I think

sometimes we have become accustomed to the debate and the discussion that take

place around

[ Page 4341 ]

first nations issues in a way that suggests there are issues that relate to

first nations, and then there are all these other issues. My experience over ten

years of being involved in public life is that at the end of the day, first

nations, their leadership and their communities are pretty much interested in

the same things that everyone else is interested in — that is, a future for

their families and communities.

Insofar as

involvement in the forest sector represents an avenue to create that future, it

is an avenue that has been fraught with obstacles for first nations. We need to

change that. This is a step along that path. It doesn't solve the issue in and

of itself, but it says to first nations: "We understand and accept that

there is a role for you to play, an important role." By working together,

we can achieve some of those very important objectives we have that relate to

creating economic opportunities for people in communities that in some cases are

very rural and very isolated, where, admittedly — to the extent that there are

economic opportunities that can be exploited — they largely relate to our

forest resource. That is a key feature of this legislative framework.

Now, in the

48 hours since the legislation has been tabled, I have heard some degree of

anxiety expressed around the notion of monitoring or what in legislative terms

is generally referred to as compliance and enforcement. Some of the phraseology

that I have heard troubles me. I want to deal with that in specific detail in a

moment.

It would

also be remiss of me, having just talked about the forest stewardship plan as it

relates to forestry licensees, not to deal for a moment with a couple of the

unique features of that framework as they relate to woodlot licence owners. They

exist in a slightly different way and practise their trade in a slightly

different way. They tend to have smaller holdings, which include some private

land holdings. For too long they have been caught up in the planning regime that

is encapsulated by the present Forest Practices Code, which made no provision

for the unique challenges they face.

We're

changing that in Bill 74. On the strength of the advice we received from a

number of sources, not the least of which was the B.C. federation of woodlot

licence holders, I was persuaded — and I don't apologize for this — that

there was a justifiable reason for creating a separate woodlot stewardship plan

provision within this act that actually extends for a longer period of time.

That is ten years with a renewability option for a subsequent ten years.

You only

have to visit the woodlot licensees and the woodlots that exist around the

province to understand why that makes sense and why I often refer to woodlot

owners when I talk about the exceptional amount of energy and dedication that

certain British Columbians apply to the management of their particular woodlots.

It is a labour of love and, for obvious reasons, a labour of a lifetime —

sometimes a lifetime that extends beyond a single generation.

We have

made provision for that reality in this act. I am proud of and thrilled with the

degree of cooperation and input that we received from woodlot licensees as we

crafted this legislation.

[1450]

Similarly,

in developing this regime, particularly the notion of a forest stewardship plan,

we worked with the ranchers, the Cattlemen's Association. We don't often think

of them — I made mention of that yesterday — but they are intimately

involved and impacted by what takes place on the land base and how this forest

management regime, any forest management regime, impacts upon them in a very

significant way.

We talked

to them. We entertained their submissions. They made the point that cattle,

unlike trees, tend to have a degree of mobility. That is a reality that impacts

on their ability to operate. They talked to us about some of the challenges they

face, where entrance on the land to which they have grazing rights may

perpetrate damage that really takes place outside of their control.

You know

what they said to me that made a heck of a lot of sense? Perhaps government

could begin to give a degree of recognition to the fact that so many of these

ranchers have been conducting operations in a way that complies entirely with

the requirements government has set for them over years and in some cases

decades, and that maybe government, for a change, could construct a statutory

regime that gave some credit where credit was due. You know, that makes sense to

me. That really does make sense to me.

That is

what I mean when I talk about injecting a degree of common sense into this

equation. I know there are people out there — we've already heard from them

— who think that is wrong. They think that the only way you can govern what a

rancher does on the land base is to tell them prescriptively and in detail what

they can and can't do and that we shouldn't afford that rancher any degree of

flexibility to conduct his or her operations in a way that makes sense

practically and on the ground.

Well, I

disagree with those people. They say: "We're going to be watching."

Good, I say in reply. Watch. We want you to watch, because we're proud of the

talent that exists out there on the part of woodlot licence holders and

licensees and cattlemen. So watch. I for one invite that scrutiny.

We've heard

from those people who express concerns. They characterize this as a regime in

which industry will be self-policing. We've heard that term. In fact, that's not

the case. In fact, on a whole series of different levels, the Crown is not only

maintaining its responsibility for monitoring for compliance and enforcement,

but it is actually enhancing its ability to fulfil that responsibility. I think

it's important that we deal with the facts here.

It has been

pointed out that within the Forest Service, the number of individuals involved

in compliance and enforcement as a result of restructuring is actually going

down. Well, that's true. In fact, we are in the

[ Page 4342 ]

process of a significant downsizing, and of those positions that are

disappearing, 4 percent relate to compliance and enforcement. Indeed, the

compliance and enforcement

section has not been spared.

[1455]

Here's the

difference, and I think it's an important one. I am told that for decades now

— and this has gotten worse, by the way, through the advent of the Forest

Practices Code after 1994-95 — those Forest Service personnel involved in

compliance and enforcement adopted or assumed those responsibilities on a

completely part-time basis. Why was that? Well, it's because they were in their

office buried under a mountain of paperwork. They were at their desk, their

boots parked beside their chair and their hardhat hanging on the wall,

processing paper.

Now, I

can't contemplate a forest management system for a province the size of British

Columbia, with the wealth of timber resources that we have, that doesn't involve

a degree of administrative processing. I mean, that's a fact of life. But the

point I have made and will continue to make, and to a certain extent will rely

upon the findings of the previous administration, is that the paper burden went

entirely out of proportion to the results we were seeking to achieve.

Bill 74,

the Forest and Range Practices Act, represents a genuine attempt to address that

imbalance so that for the first time, we are going to have upwards of 300

professionally trained compliance and enforcement officers whose dedicated,

full-time task is to be out there ensuring, on the land base, that we're getting

the results we want — holding licensees, holding woodlot owners and holding

cattlemen to proper account. That is as I think it should be. That is what I

believe the proper function of a compliance and enforcement division within the

Forest Service should be about.

There has

been concern expressed about the role of the Forest Practices Board, a feature

of our present Forest Practices Code regime. I have heard people suggesting that

it's going to disappear. The Forest Practices Board will continue in its role

unchanged, as an independent watchdog for sound forest practices — period, end

of story. I know there are people who will want to suggest otherwise as a means

of furthering their particular arguments, but anyone that suggests otherwise is

either misinformed or trying to mislead the public, because that watchdog role

will continue to be exercised by the Forest Practices Board.

We have

been explicit, as well, in this legislation about providing the Crown with an

opportunity to step in pre-emptively when it appears that on the basis of all

the evidence, the practices being employed on the ground are not going to meet

with the results that are required. Call that an extraordinary override power;

call it what you will. But that power is preserved and enshrined within this

legislation. It is there to deal with the argument…. And you know what? I

mean, I think this is, to a certain extent, a legitimate argument for people to

raise. The problem with environmental degradation is if you wait until it has

taken place, you've got a bigger problem. I think in many cases that's true.

That's why you want to preserve to the Crown, as we have, the opportunity to

step in, in extraordinary circumstances where it is abundantly clear, based on

the application of any notion of sound science and sound practices, that what is

being done on the land base is going to meet with environmental degradation. So

we have preserved that power.

[1500]

I should

say that we have also enshrined in this legislation the ability for the Crown to

step in, in cases of exceptional forest health challenges. There's an obvious

one going on right now with respect to the pine beetle, and that exists at a

scale that is almost unthinkable — an area larger than Vancouver Island in the

central part of this province — devastating billions of dollars' worth of

timber and over time rendering that timber ultimately valueless. But — and I

would be remiss not to point this out on the record — notwithstanding the fact

that this timber is infested, it maintains its structural integrity for years

and remains a merchantable commodity that we need to sell and that we need to

find customers for, and we're doing that.

What I

wanted to preserve and what we have preserved in this legislation is the broader

application of what has become known as the beetle regulation that we enacted

last fall, which allows for the Crown to step in and say these are exceptional

circumstances requiring exceptional and extraordinary action to preserve the

health of our forests. Though there's nothing much to be achieved at this point

by second-guessing past actions, one has to at least ask whether we might have

alleviated in part the extent of the infestation if that approach had been taken

in the past. I don't think one can say with any degree of credibility that,

absent intervention from Mother Nature, we could have eliminated this — any

government or any officials. But you have to ask whether or not, with a little

more pre-emptive action a number of years ago, the spread of this infestation

might have been slowed more than it has.

We are also

very deliberately increasing the monetary penalties — the sanctions that are

available for application against those licensees and others who might feel that

there is an opportunity here to contravene the requirements to cut corners. I

suppose it is natural that there is going to be someone or a few people out

there who see this as an opportunity to cut corners. Well, they will be sadly

mistaken. They will be harshly dealt with, and the penalty regime that we are

applying to this legislation will confirm that. I think people who adopt that

approach are in for a rude awakening.

I guess the

last thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as part of this compliance and

enforcement regime, is to again emphasize the degree to which we are

incorporating accountability from the resource professions in ways that simply

haven't existed in British Columbia. You know, biologists are trained in the

very subject areas that the vast majority of British Columbians, quite rightly,

say they are concerned about — whether it is soil, water quality or

biodiversity. That falls

[ Page 4343 ]

squarely within the ambit of the expertise that biologists have and are

trained to have. We are going to formalize that through this and subsequent

legislation by actually establishing a college of biologists — the first

province in Canada to do that, the first province in this country. It's been a

long time coming, and I know from my discussions with the biologists association

that it is something they have been advocating for years and years — to this

point unsuccessfully, but that will be ending — and they will take their

rightful place amongst that group of professions and professionals who have

carved out for British Columbia a reputation around the world for excellence in

resource and forestry management.

[1505]

I am proud

that this legislation has provided the impetus for getting on with the

establishment of that long-overdue requirement. It extends beyond biologists,

because of course we're also going to modernize the agrologists governing

legislation, again with a view to ensuring that degree of professional

accountability is provided for and capitalized upon.

I guess it

would be remiss of me not to mention professional foresters, who have been a

part of the process in this province for decades and, as I have said in the

past, have acquired a worldwide reputation for their skills, their abilities,

their expertise and their discipline when it comes to governing the conduct of

their members. That is a feature, I'm happy to say, of this legislative

framework.

Now, I want

to take a moment to also draw members' attention to the extensive consultative

process that was instrumental in taking us to this point on a matter that is

admittedly complex, complicated, and involves the interests of a great many

British Columbians and a great many interest groups. I want to remind members

that we took an approach to this that was far different from what governments of

the past have done. I said this is a complicated matter, and we do need the

involvement of a broad range of stakeholders.

The way you

do that is by going out to talk to those people and soliciting their views. Yet

I have been involved in this political exercise long enough, the better part of

a decade, to know there are very clever ways for governments to go about doing

that — creating the window dressing, engaging people for a limited period of

time — and then those views sit on a shelf somewhere and are never heard of

again. Part of the reason that happens is because governments go out and talk to

the public in a vacuum. On something as complex as the Forest Practices Code,

they show up in a town, if they go to the town, and they say, "What do you

think?" and people respond with: "Think about what?" What we

decided to do is actually give British Columbians a target, a specific document

that they could examine, that they could critique, that they could dissect so

they would have at least an initial understanding or impression about the

direction the government intended to go in.

I was under

no illusions from the outset that there were going to need to be significant

changes, that the objectives we set for ourselves were going to…. It was going

to be a challenge to meet them all. Yet I also said British Columbians need to

know what is in our mind so that they can have an opportunity to influence it in

a meaningful way, in a real way.

[1510]

I just want

to take a moment, because the exercise that unfolded has actually rekindled my

faith to a certain extent in the positive things that can flow from a

consultation exercise that is set up to genuinely elicit those views and is

genuinely designed to be responsive to those views. The first thing we did

was…. I spoke to some of my colleagues in this House — the member for North

Island, the member from Prince George, some of the members from Victoria, from

Burnaby and also, I should say, from the Kootenays — to ask them if they would

take on this task of travelling this province and asking British Columbians what

they thought about our initial attempt to construct a framework around which you

could build a results-based Forest Practices Code. They unhesitatingly said yes.

We are the better for it.

Mr.

Speaker, in the past, as you know, so many times what has happened — and it

has certainly happened with respect to forest management legislation in this

province — is that the government's first crack at it appears in the public's

domain as a bill. It gets passed, and then we spend the next five, six, seven

years trying to fix it because it bears absolutely no resemblance to what is

actually workable or practical. The people that it affects see it for the first

time — or their first opportunity to influence that legislation exists —

after it has been tabled here, and it's a lot tougher to change.

Yet my

colleagues in this House — I am indebted to them, and British Columbians are

indebted to them — took an extraordinary amount of time to solicit the

opinions of people, agencies, licensees, stakeholder groups right across British

Columbia. They went to 13 communities, and they received 250 presentations. I

want everyone to know that those presentations have had a profound impact on the

document that was tabled in this House a few days ago, Bill 74. I want those

presenters, those 250 people, to know that we could not possibly have

constructed a statutory instrument that is as workable as I think this one

is…. It's not perfect. Let's not kid ourselves. It's not perfect. We've still

got a lot of work to do, but it's got a darn sight better chance of

accomplishing what we set out to accomplish, thanks to the input of those

British Columbians.

Similarly,

I want to talk about another individual who was the second half. In fact, he

oversaw the overall consultation process. That's Prof. George Hoberg from the

University of British Columbia. That exercise began in April and took place

through the spring and summer. Professor Hoberg received almost 60 technical

groups and individuals and a further 133 written submissions from, again, a wide

range of stakeholders, people impacted by this shift to a results-based Forest

Practices Code.

The

committee, headed by the member for North Island and assisted so effectively by

my other col-

[ Page 4344 ]

leagues, produced a report, as did Professor Hoberg. I want to tell members

today that those reports have had a profound impact on the final product if the

final product indeed is, when I say that, the legislation that has been tabled

in this House this week.

[1515]

Now, some

people will try to promote the argument that this was a selective process. I've

heard the lines. Members of this House have heard the lines: "This is a

code that was drafted by the major licensees." Not true. Dead wrong.

"This was a process," they are arguing, "that excluded

environmental organizations." Not true. Dead wrong. There were 46

presentations, two from the Forest Caucus, to Professor Hoberg and the MLA

committee; 20 additional briefs were presented. I'm not going to list them all,

but there were ForestEthics, Forest Watch, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and a whole

range of environmental organizations.

Now, I

cannot say for certain what it was that prompted those groups during the summer

to depart from the process, to step away and decide not to continue working with

government. I am told they were skeptical about the degree to which they might

influence the outcome. Well, the nature of consultation is that one makes the

arguments as a means of trying to influence the outcome — the same way the

cattlemen did, the same way the woodlot licensees did, the same way the

biologists did. Perhaps the biologists were skeptical at the outset, yet here

they are with the first-ever college of biologists legislation pending.

I could

spend time in this House expressing my frustration and my disappointment that

members of these environmental organizations decided to step back and not

involve themselves in the process, but I'm not sure what would be achieved by

doing that. What I do want to do today in clear, unambiguous language is say to

those environmental organizations — many of whom have demonstrated in the past

the capacity for approaching these issues in a responsible way that takes into

account the responsibility we all have toward working men and women in British

Columbia who live in forest-dependent communities — that we want them to work

with us. There is a chair at this table for you to sit down and work with the

government. There are no guarantees about the outcomes that would flow, and I'm

sure we'll have dandy debates and passionate arguments, but it is not good

enough to take your marbles and go home and then bitch and complain…. Well,

that's unparliamentary, but….

Interjections.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Complain about the result.

That is my

invitation. That is my hope. I am not sympathetic to the argument that says that

even in advance of this legislation and the regulations being finalized, certain

groups would be heading off to our customers in Europe and other parts of the

world threatening boycotts. It is despicable conduct that those people who would

advocate this action would try to hold British Columbia families hostage before

even giving this a chance.

That's what

we're asking. I am extending the invitation to those environmental organizations

to say: "Work with us. Scrutinize us. Scrutinize the licensees. Scrutinize

the woodlot owners and scrutinize the biologists, but reserve judgment until you

have at least provided all of those people — whose track record, I might add,

particularly of late, is pretty darn good…. Give them that opportunity."

We have

embarked upon that, I think, extensive — not I think, but that I know is

extensive — consultative exercise, and as I said earlier, we have emerged with

a bill that benefits greatly from the input we have received. Yes, it was a

different way of doing things. And you know what? I guess it's not politically

the smartest thing to do to put out a discussion paper, invite comment and then

stand up, as I did when the criticism was levelled, and admit that we haven't

got there yet, that we've got more work to do.

[1520]

I don't

mind making that admission. That's what I said back in late spring or early

summer. We've done that work, and we're still not perfect. I'll guarantee you

we're not perfect, as difficult as that might be for Mr. Speaker to believe, but

I think we're closer. We're much closer. It's a tribute to those people who

served on these committees, who took the time to present to these committees and

to explain the unique challenges they face as practitioners on the land base. As

I say, it has rekindled in large measure my faith in a process of public

consultation which, if conducted properly, fairly and genuinely, I think can net

and achieve some pretty good results.

There will

undoubtedly be detailed discussion in the committee stage of this bill about

some of the specific features. As I've said, there's some work to be done in

terms of the drafting of legislation. We've got a big chore ahead of us in

training not just our own people within the Forest Service but also

stakeholders. Upwards of 10,000 people are going to need to receive some

information and training. We are planning to do that between January and April,

on the assumption that this bill receives the approval of the members of this

House. It's a big job, a big job ahead.

I have been

heartened by the response this legislation has received from across the board,

across British Columbia, particularly in those parts of British Columbia where

forestry matters most. But it matters right across British Columbia. No one

should be under any illusions. When this V-8 engine that drives our economy

sputters, it impacts all of us. It impacts our ability to provide that health

care service that British Columbians expect and need, because of the revenues

involved to government. It impacts on our ability to deliver a top-quality

education system to our young people and at the advanced education stage.

None of us

is immune. Nowhere in British Columbia are we shielded from the impact that ten

years of economic decline in the forest sector have had on our province. This

isn't going to change that overnight. It

[ Page 4345 ]

isn't going to change and reverse that economic decline single-handedly, but

it's going to start us on the path in the right direction. It is going to send a

signal to all British Columbians and to our markets around the world that we

actually believe, embrace and uphold the highest possible environmental

standards, but in British Columbia we do it in a way that makes sense. We have

stripped away that mountain of bureaucracy and paperwork that was suffocating

not just Forest Service employees but the forest sector itself.

I invite

the scrutiny. I invite those who say they are going to watch, to watch

carefully. I do so because I'm confident — not so much in myself, maybe not

even so much in the government, but in the professionals that have staffed the

Forest Service for decades, the better part of a century. Maybe even more

important than that, I am confident in British Columbians who work in forestry,

whose grandparents worked in forestry and whose grandchildren can again have

some hope of working in forestry if we can get this right and reverse the

fortunes of an industry that can be the lifeblood of our economic life in

British Columbia for generations to come.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, second reading debate on Bill 74 will continue in

just a moment. We're just going to take a recess for three or four minutes.

The House

recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading debate on Bill 74 continues with the Leader of the

Opposition.

MacPhail: I listened with interest to the Forests minister's

well-thought-out presentation of the legislation. I applaud him for covering all

of the issues to date that he has faced in bringing forward this legislation. I

hope that I will be seen as being as thoughtful as the Minister of Forests on

what is a very, very important piece of legislation facing us.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

It is

enabling legislation. Everyone claims it to be enabling legislation. It is

always incumbent upon legislators to examine enabling legislation very

carefully, because enabling legislation by definition means that there is more

to come.

What is

contained in this bill? What is it that we can face head-on in this piece of

legislation? It does eliminate approval of a couple of planning levels. There's

no question about that. It replaces those two planning levels with the

requirement for one plan, called the forest stewardship plan.

Much of the

legislation repeats what is already in the Forest Practices Code. Of course,

eventually this legislation will replace the Forest Practices Code in its

entirety.

Because

it's enabling, we must examine carefully what work still needs to be done — in

other words, what's missing from the contents of the bill. It is not my judgment

that says what's missing. It is the judgment of pretty much everybody out there,

including the minister himself, that acknowledges that all of the outcome

requirements, all of the outcome statements about forest practices in this

province, are still to come. It is these outcome statements, outcome

requirements, that will actually shape the forest stewardship plan itself.

Of course,

compliance and enforcement methods and compliance and enforcement standards

cannot be judged for adequacy at all until we know what it is the industry must

comply with. Fines, whether they be doubled or tripled — administrative or

otherwise — cannot be determined until we know upon which outcomes the

industry will be judged to be in compliance or in violation.

All of the

hard work upon which the success of the code changes will be judged, both from

an economic point of view and from a point of view of ensuring sustainability,

is still ahead of us. What's the time frame for completing this hard work? About

five weeks, maybe six. Six weeks. That's the time left in which the government

will write the regulations that will provide all of this crucial information.

[1535]

The next

question that will be asked is: why the tight time frame? Why the tight time

frame on doing all the hard work? The real nub of the issue is still before us.

Let me propose this, and I would be happy to put this on the floor of the

Legislature and have people explain to me where I'm wrong.

The

government has to have in place a new regulatory regime by April 1 of next year,

and they have to have the public service training for that new regulatory regime

commence by January of next year. Some may say: if getting these matters right

takes a little longer, what's wrong with that? That's a good question.

The tight

time lines make me a little suspicious, a little leery, a little wary of the

real government intent here. Is this really…?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Is this really because the government will have one-third less

staff by April 1 of next year because of budget cuts, one-third less staff to

enforce good forest practices, and therefore must have in place a regulatory

regime that can be carried out by that much smaller workforce? Are we really

here carrying out an exercise that's been driven by budget cuts instead of what

makes sense for the industry and the future of our forest base?

I put that

question out. It's being asked by experts around the province. Why do I raise

this? I hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour questioning whether I'm

alleging another conspiracy theory. No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker. This is way too

important a matter to do so.

[ Page 4346 ]

I'll tell

you why I am raising this. The government has made two promises which are

completely in conflict — completely. First, the Liberal government wants to

reduce the costs to industry of the Forest Practices Code. Fair enough — so do

I. I absolutely support that promise. The government has also said, though, that

this will not mean a reduction in the safe, sustainable, world-class forest

practice standards that our province achieved in the 1990s. That's why I support

that promise of the Liberal government. I support that too.

What that

means, then, is that the reduction of industry costs in ensuring safe,

sustainable, world-class forest practices will be transferred elsewhere. There

are costs to maintaining those standards. Nobody denies that. The industry won't

bear those costs, so we can assume that those costs will be transferred to

government. Government will now pick up the costs of ensuring the achievement of

those world-class standards. In fact, that's what's meant by a results-based

code. That's exactly the intent of a results-based initiative. The industry

doesn't bear the costs, but in order to ensure the results, government picks up

the costs of compliance and enforcement.

However,

here's the contradictory promise made by the same government. The Liberal

government is going to cut government expenditures in order to meet their

self-imposed requirement to balance the budget by 2004. The year '04-05 budget

must be balanced, by law.

You can't

do both promises. You can't achieve both promises. One has to give. Until we see

the regulations, we cannot know which promise the government has abandoned.

[1540]

I hope that

will form some of the discussion on this Legislature floor. I hope the

government MLAs will stand up and explain how the requirement to balance the

budget, which means a one-third cut in the Ministry of Forests, a one-third cut

in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and a one-third cut in the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, will also allow the government to

ensure the achievement of those world-class standards that we were recognized

worldwide for achieving in the 1990s.

Let me just

remind members that the reason why everybody stood up in this Legislature and

voted for the Forest Practices Code in the mid-1990s was because we were facing

some very, very strong criticism from elsewhere in the world about our forest

practices. Whether that critique was a perception only or a reality will be a

long debate. I actually thought they were based on reality, but that is why

everyone stood in this Legislature and voted for the Forest Practices Code: to

end that debilitating, devastating criticism of British Columbia forest

practices.

On this

legislation, Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act, we need to really,

really make one thing clear. This is not the new Forest Practices Code. It is

not. I was a little confused when this legislation was introduced and when I

read the legislation. I had a full 12 hours to read the legislation before I

thought I might have to speak to it, but I've now had 36 hours. Sorry, I guess

it's 48 hours, if we're being accurate.

When I read

this act, I saw that so much of it referred to the Forest Practices Code, but

the Forest Practices Code will eventually be amended and will provide a

transition period, and the Forest and Range Practices Act will then have to be

amended again. Two more pieces of legislation will be brought in to deal with

the professional practices, and then we will have the full package of what

replaces the Forest Practices Code.

So what

does this legislation do? It's the enabling legislation for the new process. The

new code we're all anticipating, which we know nothing about yet, is to be about

outcomes or results. We've heard over and over from this government that it will

be a results-based Forest Practices Code, but the results aren't there. Nobody

knows what the government means by results, and you certainly can't tell from

this legislation.

The Forest

and Range Practices Act does mention outcomes, but they're not defined. Nor, I

expect, will any of us actually get to debate those outcomes in this

Legislature, because like so much of this government's other crucial

legislation, the regulations that hold the key aspects, processes and changes

are missing. My question to each and every Liberal MLA is: how are we going to

have an open public debate in this House on the results-based code when we don't

have access to the vital information?

It's not

acceptable that the government discusses this in its caucus meetings behind

closed doors. It's not acceptable that the government discusses and decides this

in a closed cabinet meeting. My question to everyone here is: when do we debate

the substance of the results-based code in a public way, in a way that the

public can judge the legislators they elected?

[1545]

I don't

single out the Minister of Forests on this practice. It has become an

all-too-common trend with the Liberal government. They bring in legislation for

debate, but they leave the vital regulations with all the key changes hidden in

their offices away from public scrutiny.

They did

that with Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act; and Bill 27, the

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. The Liberals

brought in sweeping and disturbing changes to welfare, but they kept the details

hidden so we couldn't debate them. It is only by public reaction to the

enforcement of those same regulations that any public scrutiny can occur. The

Liberals did it with Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The

government brought in changes to the Land Reserve Commission, but they didn't

release the regulations on what the new permitted uses of the agricultural land

reserve would be. The Liberals did it earlier this week with Bill 73, the

Community Care and Assisted Living Act. It's governing, again, by regulations.

Regulations

are called subordinate legislation for a reason. They are to be subordinate to

legislation. This government cannot let such an important change that

[ Page 4347 ]

will affect every aspect of our economy, our sustainability and our civil

society…. They cannot let those changes occur without the public having an

ability to debate those real issues. This legislation, the Forest and Range

Practices Act, actually takes this governing by regulation even further. I

actually ask each and every member in this chamber why the government is so

determined to block debate on so many crucial issues. The public wants an open

debate; they deserve an open debate.

In the

first round of consultation pretty much everybody said: "It's not good

enough. Go back and have a second discussion." But what's going to happen?

Well, let's take a closer look at Bill 74. Thirty-one sections of the bill are

about giving the government authority to make regulations. I was actually taken

aback as I read

part 9, "Power to make regulations,"

section 141:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act."

Forms are

apparently the great nub of the issue the government is trying to deal with,

with the industry — the paperwork. In "Forms,"

section 142, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe forms for this act.

"Fees or charges,"

section 143, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

make regulations respecting fees or charges. In "Security,"

section

144, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting deposits

and security of any kind. In "Recovery of money, "

section 145, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the recovery of

money. In "Exemptions,"

section 146, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the exemption of

a person, place, thing or transaction from a provision of this act. In

"Criteria for exercise of discretionary powers,"

section 147, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the criteria that

a person must use in exercising a discretionary power. In "Interpretive

forest sites, recreation sites and recreation trails,"

section 148, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting interpretive

forest sites, recreation sites and recreation trails. In "Objectives set by

government," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

respecting objectives set by government. In "Watersheds," the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. In "Plans and

practices," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. In

"Review and comment and sharing with first nations," the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations.

Here are

the other sections that I carry on with — that the regulations will be made;

in what form, we don't know.

[1550]

"Practices

and planning — community forest agreements, woodlot licences" and

"Forest resources." This is a particularly interesting section. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the protection of

forest resources; roads and rights-of-way; timber harvesting practices and

methods; silviculture systems and silviculture treatments; gene resources;

terrain stability and soil disturbances; cutblocks, use of Crown range and range

developments; notification requirements; administrative remedies; intervention,

remediation and consultation; reconsideration; appeals and the commission; the

Forest Practices Board; botanical forest products; chief…. Sorry. I guess

that's the end of the list. No — sorry. The chief forester standards for

forest practices will be by regulation. The Forest Practices Advisory Council

may be established by regulation.

That's the

list we can find in one place of the topics that will be decided by regulation.

Why is it that we won't be debating these matters either in the public or at

least in this legislative chamber?

This

legislation probably needs to be very closely examined by the Minister of State

for Deregulation. Does his "get rid of two regulations for every regulation

you put in place" work? What does that mean for forest practices in this

province?

I submit

that Bill 74 should be debated with all the regulations out there for everyone

to see. Without them, we have no idea what the outcomes of forest practices will

be. There isn't one MLA that can stand up here and say: "I'm proud to vote

for this legislation, because that outcome is in place and will protect my

community." Not one. If they try, they will be made to look like fools,

because the outcomes are completely unknown as of today.

Of course,

those outcomes are crucial to making the code work. They're crucial to

protecting the environment, and they're crucial to helping our communities be

sustainable. That's why they should be debated in public.

The

minister and his staff say the regulations will be ready by early December. That

gives the public — people who advocate on behalf of the protection of the

environment, our environmental non-government organizations, first nations,

communities, workers and industry — less than five or six weeks to try and

provide the input on what those outcomes will look like.

[1555]

Will there

be a public process on defining these outcomes? My prediction is no. Staff at

the ministry have said the minister will create a public advisory council.

That's good; that will be part of the new process. I also predict that the

public advisory council will not be created in time to contribute to the

drafting of the regulations, so how will stakeholders be involved in creating

and defining the outcomes?

Well, I

hope I'm wrong in predicting this, but I predict that they will get to see the

draft regulations and make a comment, and that will be it — no active

engagement, no active participation, no openness and no accountability. There

will be a closed-door approach. Therefore, there will remain a great deal of

uncertainty and anxiety in the industry and among first nations, environmental

groups and communities that are dependent on the well-being of the forest

industry.

Industry,

even though they were all there, lined up — credit to them; they were there

while the minister made his announcement — also said they're taking a

[ Page 4348 ]

wait-and-see approach. Environmental groups are extremely worried, because

they predict that the regulations will be set without consultation.

Let me just

say that there's a difference between showing someone a finished product and

saying, "How do you like it?" and real consultation. First nations

like the Carrier-Sekani tribal council are already threatening legal action for

lack of consultation and infringement on their rights in this area. I will talk

more about that later.

Why are the

outcomes so important? By outcomes, I mean: what are the results with which the

industry must comply to ensure a sustainable forest sector? The outcomes are the

cornerstone of any results-based approach. They are what define the obligations

of companies to reach certain objectives around ecosystem health and around

protection, biodiversity, old- growth retention, wildlife habitat retention and

recreation. Those are just some of the many other valued ecosystem components.

People are

naturally concerned about what the outcomes will be. To date, they have every

right to be concerned. In the original discussion paper and the consultation

process that ensued on the results-based code, many, many groups and individuals

slammed the proposed code for its ambiguous and unclear outcome statements. It's

clear by that reaction that a public process needed to occur subsequent to the

failure of that first consultation.

I thought

it was interesting — I bet you I'll hear this again — that somehow, because

there were 21 submissions from first nations leaders on the first round of

consultations, that meant that the government had lived up to its obligation.

Well, that first round of consultation was a complete failure. We'll talk about

that in a moment.

If this new

code is to work, the outcomes must be clear and specific. They also need to

respect and coincide with land use plans. Just as the land use planning process

is an open and public process, the development of outcomes should be an open and

accountable process. I don't want to gloss over that point. Unless there is

completion of the land use process, there cannot be any workable outcomes —

none.

On the

ministry's capacity to comply and enforce, the minister has stated quite boldly

that the new enforcement regime will bring down the hammer on non-compliers to

balance the after-the-fact nature of the results-based code. No one is denying

that there is an after-the-fact element to a results-based code. What I mean by

that is that because there is no enforcement or monitoring during the carrying

out of forestry business in our province, it's only after the fact that we can

see, one, whether the outcomes have been complied with or, two, if they haven't

been complied with, how severe the damage is.

[1600]

I think

there will be many who will make this statement or raise this question. What, in

the new process, prevents the company from doing anything they want until they

get caught? That question needs to be answered. The minister says that one way

of doing that is to bring in hefty penalties to ensure there's deterrence.

Well, let's

talk about those hefty penalties. They'll be made by regulation. Any new aspect

of penalties will all be done by regulation. The level of penalties that we do

know about, which this government is putting in this legislation, were there in

the old Forest Practices Code. There's absolutely nothing new, but the

government says that it may double or triple administrative penalties. That's

the claim they're making.

What do we

know about what they're going to do in that area? Nothing. We won't know until

the regulations come in. How can we tell that this commitment to enforce is

anything more than a wink-wink, nudge-nudge from the government to the forest

companies? And if that's not the case, prove it. Bring in some legislation that

clearly states how this enforcement mechanism will work. But if it is the

industry sitting with the government and drafting the application of these

administrative penalties, we will be ridiculed around the world.

I actually

went to the Web and drew down all the administrative penalties that now exist,

and the list is long. It's discouragingly long. I think it's about 27 pages. I'm

quite open to reviewing those administrative penalties and making sense of them,

but if what we do is go behind closed doors and say that there will now be one

page of administrative penalties, and if you get caught you'll pay double or

triple, how is that progress? How will the public know what administrative

penalties are being shunted aside, discarded or abandoned, and for what reasons

are they being abandoned? There is so much uncertainty around the ministry's

ability to enforce compliance anyway that the public has to have a clear

understanding, at a minimum, of what it is the industry is expected to comply

with.

I was a

little bit taken aback yesterday — it could have been yesterday or the day

before; I've heard the Minister of Forests on two days — when the Minister of

Forests accused the opposition of painting logging companies as the enemy. Well,

that is not the case at all. I am well aware, being a citizen of British

Columbia and having been one who was at one point responsible for collecting the

revenues of this province, of how important the forest industry is to British

Columbia.

[1605]

have recently toured a dozen…. Well, I don't want to exaggerate. In the last

six months I have toured almost a dozen forest-dependent communities. I'm going

to two more this weekend. I was visiting two the weekend before last, and I

toured several before that with my colleagues, the Liberal MLAs, on the

prebudget consultation committee. I know how important the forest industry is to

our economy, to our well-being and to the funding of our health and education

systems, and I have the utmost respect for those who work in the industry. But

the reality is that bad practices happen. Environmental degradation happens, and

it is the government's responsibility to uphold the public

[ Page 4349 ]

interest and the health of our ecosystems as one of those crucial public

interests. That's what we're elected to do. That is our responsibility, and to

do any less is to be negligent.

To ensure

the proper management of our ecosystems, we need people on the ground monitoring

the activities going on in our forests. Unfortunately, recent government actions

will greatly reduce the capacity of the Ministry of Forests staff to perform the

critical compliance and enforcement functions. Last week the minister cut 700

positions, and he closed 11 district offices.

Today we

hear, though, from the minister — and I appreciate him being honest on the

record — that there will only be a 4 percent reduction in compliance and

enforcement officers. He somehow claims that the fact that they will be

dedicated only to compliance and enforcement makes up for all of that. Well,

we'll see. We'll be watching that carefully, but I must say, having talked to

compliance and enforcement officers in recent days, much of the work they had

been doing in the last two years was not about paperwork, as the minister

suggested. All of those changes had already been made to get rid of the

unnecessary paperwork. The compliance and enforcement officers were out in the

field on the ground in the forests doing their job. Now we have fewer of them,

and there are 11 fewer district offices throughout this province.

Here's the

real key to all of this, Mr. Speaker. Again, let me put this out as a question

rather than an assertion: will the government guarantee that there won't be

further downsizing in compliance and enforcement? There are two more years of

cuts coming, across the board — two more years of cuts in the Ministry of

Forests; in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and in the Ministry

of Sustainable Resource Management. We know about those. Frankly, the government

is so far off target from meeting its budget requirements that I expect those

two rounds of cuts will be accompanied by a third round of cuts in subsequent

years.

All of the

economic initiatives of this government have failed. They're not anywhere close

to meeting their budget targets or meeting their balanced-budget legislation.

But prove me wrong. All the Minister of Forests has to do is stand up and say:

"The compliance and enforcement officers of my ministry are protected from

further downsizing." That will go a long way to assuring the public, the

world — those who are watching us right now — that this government's serious

about ensuring a sustainable forest sector. There's also uncertainty around

whether or not the new compliance and enforcement officers will actually log

more hours in the field than they do now. We'll watch that carefully.

[1610]

The

academic literature on the results-based approach shows very clearly that that

kind of approach requires intense monitoring, and I expect the minister doesn't

have any idea whether he has the capacity to carry out the needed requirements.

Those office closures under the new plan, the new process…. Forest stewardship

plans will be required for logging activities. The Minister of Forests is going

to delegate the approval of those forest stewardship plans to district managers

throughout the province. The problem, of course, is that 11 district offices

were just closed by the same minister — shut completely. The functions they

were performing have to be picked up by the remaining district offices, placing

an increased burden on the staff there. I'm sure industry is very concerned

about that, and they should be.

The result

we have now is a system where more demands are being placed on fewer staff

spread out over an even larger area. This now provides a reduced capacity to

know what is going on out in our woods, but I beg the Minister of Forests to

stand up and say: "That's not the case. My ministry has been protected from

further cuts."

I heard

some discussion about job protection arising out of this new act. That's a

legitimate issue we should all be discussing. During a time when our

forest-dependent communities need strong support from government, it's

interesting that not one single person is claiming that the new code will create

new jobs — not one.

The

minister has said there will be a reduction in costs of $3 to $5 per cubic metre,

I think it is. The industry says a reduction in costs of maybe $2 to $4 per

cubic metre. Neither is saying that will mean more jobs. No, no one's claiming

that. Could it be that the industry and government are worried that there will

be less timber, less lumber, less pulp to sell? Are they worried that some

market campaigns may interfere with the selling of our B.C. product or that

market campaigns may come about as a result of this legislation? I certainly

hope not.

I urge

everyone in this province who cares about the well-being of our future, of our

natural resources and of forest-dependent communities to do everything to work

with this government to prevent market campaigns being waged against British

Columbians. Yet I also know there are many out there who are feeling like they

have no other option to consider. Let me read out some of those comments. These

are respected British Columbians. No one should ever accuse these respected

British Columbians of being enemies of B.C. It was wrong when it was said in the

nineties, and if the accusation is made now, it's wrong again.

Jessica

Clogg of the West Coast Environmental Law Association said the Liberal

legislation "contains no specific protections for water, fish, endangered

species or similar environmental values." Industry is going to be

essentially writing its own rules.

Vicky

Husband of the Sierra Club, who just received the Order of Canada, is a good

British Columbian. She said: "They're turning back the clock." She

also said: "This is older than the old era."

[1615]

Lisa

Matthaus of the Sierra Club of B.C. said the code "offers loggers a

loophole big enough to drive a logging truck through. If companies can establish

that

[ Page 4350 ]

they believe they were doing the right thing, they won't be penalized for

causing environmental damage."

Tamara

Stark of Greenpeace said: "At this point, we're sending out an alarm call

to customers of B.C. forest products. This code is a very worrying sign that we

are moving back to a more adversarial relationship that we don't want and we

don't think the public of B.C. wants."

The West

Coast Environmental Law Association has been thoughtful, though, giving to the

public their thoughts on what could change and avoid market campaigns against

British Columbia products. Here's what they say are the key environmental

concerns. There will be less oversight of industrial logging.

"There will no longer be government approval of roads and cutblocks —

just the general area where industry will carry out its activity. This turns

back the clock to well before the current Forest Practices Code.

"It increases risk of harm to environmental values at the cutblock level.

The location of a cutblock and how it will be logged is often very important

for maintaining environmental values, but will not be reviewed by government

officials.

"The main reason for this major reduction in agency oversight is staff

and budget cuts — 700 Ministry of Forests staff in the coming year." If

you include the related agencies in Water, Land and Air Protection and in

Sustainable Resource Management, there are more than 1,000 layoffs. "This

is in addition to the elimination of 600 Forests positions last year.

"These

changes mean a substantial increase to industry control over what happens on

public land. We do not see corresponding industry accountability for this new

autonomy."

Again,

I'm continuing to read from the West Coast Environmental Law backgrounder on

concerns. The reason I bring this forward is because there is a chance now for

the minister to listen to these concerns and address them through regulation in

an open and publicly accountable way.

The second

environmental concern is weaker approval criteria for plans.

"Forest

stewardship plans must be approved if they comply with the law and if the

minister considers that they 'are likely to achieve the objective set by

government.' Under the current code a district manager" — or in some

cases an environment official — "had to be satisfied that the plan

would adequately manage and conserve forest resources, whether or not

government had set any objectives."

The West Coast Environmental Law Association acknowledges that this

was a fairly subjective approval criteria, but it was nonetheless better than

what is in this current Bill 74.

The third

concern —"Where are the Results?"— is industry self-regulation.

The Forest and Range Practices Act:

"…contains

no specific protections for water, fish, endangered species or similar

environmental values. Instead of measurable results specified in a

results-based code, industry will be setting its own results in new forest

stewardship plans. While these will have to be consistent with objectives

set by government, such objectives do not yet exist for most environmental

values and are constrained by arbitrary and unscientific caps on timber

supply impact.

"Likewise,

while the Liberal government promised that standards and regulations will be

established later, these will only be defaults. Government backgrounders and

explanatory notes released with the Forest and Range Practices Act clearly

indicate that industry can and will be writing its own alternative

rules."

The fourth

environmental concern is less public involvement.

[1620]

"There

will be fewer opportunities for public input due to the new five-year term of

plans, which is extendable to ten years. For example, opportunities could be

reduced to once every five or ten years instead of annually or biannually, as

is the current practice.

"Due

to the more general nature of the new forest stewardship plans, the public

will not have as much information to comment on, including no knowledge of

exactly where the cutblocks and roads will be, so review and comment

opportunities under forest stewardship plans are likely to be less

meaningful."

Because no

government approval is required for roads or cutblock plans, industry is

effectively the decision-maker, and this could mean that more chances for public

input will be ignored.

Fifth

concern by the West Coast Environmental Law Association: "Self-reporting

and Liability Exemptions."

"There

is a new liability exemption which provides that self-declarations by industry

are 'conclusively deemed' to mean their obligations have been met, unless

there has been a material misrepresentation or misstatement of fact, or unless

a district manager takes issue with the report within a specified time

period."

Sixth

concern: "Exemptions from the Code."

"The

new code contains numerous new and broad exemptions from the act for

'emergencies and sanitation harvesting,' but the use of these ministerial powers

is not clearly limited in an accountable way."

Seventh

concern: "Defences."

"Despite

the more general nature of the only approved plan, compliance with the plan

constitutes a defence against harm caused to the environment. This is a

departure from previous suggestions. The previous suggestion was that the

departure from a prescriptive planning regime should be accompanied by an

increase in industry accountability for results. Under this new code, a

company is not liable for damage to the environment if it is acting in

accordance with the plan."

There

are also new defences for administrative penalties that may reduce the

effectiveness of administrative remedies as an alternative to costly court

prosecutions — for example, allowing a due diligence defence for

administrative penalties, which is contrary to the recommendations of the

Forest Appeals Commission and Forest Practices Board.

Even

without new challenges to enforcement, administrative penalties averaged only

$2,500 for the last year reported.

Eighth

concern: "Centralizing Power in Minister."

"This

code puts most decision-making in the hands of the Minister of Forests,

whereas previous decision-makers were usually district managers and, in some

[ Page 4351 ]

cases, Ministry of Environment officials. While the

minister's powers will be delegated to agency officials, it opens the door to

greater political involvement in decision-making."

Ninth

concern and last: "How Many Codes Could There Be?"

"The

Forest and Range Practices Act broadens the ability of industry to have pilot

projects with an alternative regulatory regime. The current requirement is

that pilot projects must provide 'at least the equivalent protection for

forest resources and resource features' as the code and 'adequately manage and

conserve….'"

Those requirements are now replaced with the weaker test that they

be "in the public interest" and consistent with objectives set by

the government. Now, those are thoughtful concerns and could easily be

addressed either in debate or in a public way with the establishment of

regulations.

But perhaps

the greatest area of concern in public commentary today comes from the man

appointed to monitor last spring's consultation process. Dr. Hoberg of the

University of B.C. said that the absence of environmental standards is striking.

He said that a couple of days ago. I called Dr. Hoberg after that comment,

because sometimes people are quoted out of context. I talked directly to Dr.

Hoberg. The discussion was thoughtful. It was completely non-partisan, and he

was very hopeful that the government would listen carefully to the

recommendations he had made, but he did reiterate that the legislation was

striking for its lack of environmental standards.

[1625]

What else

is missing from the consultation process that the minister is keen on using to

back him up as validation? Let me go through the recommendations from Dr.

Hoberg's report that are missing.

Again, let

me just clarify for the record that Dr. George Hoberg was appointed by the

Liberal government to monitor and review the consultation process around the

Forest Practices Code. The Liberal MLA committee that travelled the province and

the consultation process set up by the Minister of Forests to discuss changes to

the Forest Practices Code were both monitored and critiqued, at the government's

request, by Dr. George Hoberg.

Here are

the recommendations that Dr. Hoberg made that are still missing, which still

have not been acknowledged or complied with. These are not in the order of the

report, but I have numbered them first, second, third.

The first

recommendation of Dr. Hoberg: "The government should review the proposed

regimes for environmental values and ensure that, at a minimum, they maintain

existing environmental standards." That's the recommendation.

Well, we

already know that not to be the case. The standards are completely absent from

the legislation, and furthermore we already know that the government is going to

reduce environmental standards in the code. We saw that this spring when the

Minister of Energy and Mines eliminated a whole series of environmental

requirements for road construction. We already know that. We pointed out at the

time that he was eliminating these environmental standards even while the

Minister of Forests was out consulting on exactly the same thing, and yet this

Legislature rammed through those legislative changes.

The second

recommendation that's missing: "The government should, in collaboration

with the expert community, cooperatively develop an effectiveness, evaluation

and monitoring framework for all code values and report publicly on the results

of those evaluations." Well, that hasn't been done.

The third

recommendation of Dr. Hoberg that's missing: "The government should

conduct, in collaboration with the expert community, a scientific review of the

biodiversity guidelines and results and rules for riparian protection. Ideally,

these reviews would occur prior to the introduction of any new code."

Again, recommendation ignored.

Fourth

missing recommendation: "The government should work with industry to

perform an analysis of the cost implications of the proposed results-based code

and create an efficient and effective system for monitoring the costs of

implementing the results-based code." Well, so far the statements of costs

coming from the government and the industry are totally different.

Fifth

missing recommendation: "The government should ensure sufficient resources

are deployed to enforce the code properly." I've already discussed that in

my previous remarks and pointed out that the ministry is going to be

understaffed and underfunded, especially with this last round of 700 layoffs and

office closures.

The sixth

missing recommendation: "The government should put in place legally binding

interim biodiversity objectives prior to the implementation of the new code. The

interim objectives should be subjected to a public consultation process before

they are brought into force. To the extent feasible, this should be coordinated

with the recommended scientific review of biodiversity objectives."

I actually

haven't heard the minister address this yet. Has he forgotten about this

recommendation, or is he planning to actually implement it?

Seventh

missing recommendation from Dr. Hoberg's report: "The government should

conduct additional discussions with first nations prior to finalizing the

results-based code policy decisions." Again, another ignored

recommendation.

[1630]

The

Minister of Forests met with first nations forest practitioners a few weeks ago.

At that meeting I talked to the first nations people who were there. I talked to

the chair of the meeting. It was a good meeting. Everybody acknowledged that all

of the work that needed to be done still needed to be done. The minister

acknowledged that; the first nations acknowledged that. They thought that was

the beginning of a process. Instead, they find out it was the end of a process.

Yesterday I

referred in this Legislature to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, saying they

had no choice but to take legal action, and the Minister of Finance said:

"What a surprise." I expect that the government may soon tell

[ Page 4352 ]

the Minister of Finance to learn to keep his off-the-cuff remarks to himself,

but until they can get him under control, he speaks for his government.

Here's what

that cheeky comment, that comment of disdain, was being directed toward. The

Carrier-Sekani tribal council is heavily involved in forest industry activity in

this province. They understand that it is the well-being of their tribal council

communities that rests upon the success of forest policy changes by this

government. They also know that the government has a legal obligation to consult

with them on forestry reforms. So after that meeting that took place between the

Minister of Forests and first nations forestry experts, they were alarmed to

hear via the grapevine that the Forest Practices Code was going to be

introduced. They wrote to the Premier of the province, and they wrote to the

Minister of Forests, and here's what they had to say. I'm going to read just

sections of this, but I'm happy to table the entire letter. Again, keep in mind

that it was to this letter that the Minister of Finance goes: "Oh, what a

surprise."

"Dear

Premier:

"Re

proposed forestry reforms and fiduciary duty to first nations. We

understand that your government is developing proposals to dramatically reform

the existing forestry regime to increase company flexibility and achieve a more

competitive industry. While we agree that major changes are needed to existing

laws and policies, we want to inform you that your proposed changes will

negatively impact on lands subject to aboriginal title and rights claims.

"Instead

of taking this opportunity to redraft forest legislation to fully

accommodate aboriginal title and rights, it appears your government is further

undermining first nations land interest by granting more control to industry. To

date there has been no meaningful consultation with the Carrier-Sekani tribal

council nations or other first nations regarding this proposal. This is a matter

of some urgency, as the legislation related to many of these proposals is

scheduled for the legislative session this fall.

"Therefore,

we are writing to put you on notice of the following:

"1.

The Carrier-Sekani tribal council have claimed aboriginal title and

aboriginal rights to the traditional territory in central British Columbia area,

and this claim to aboriginal title and rights is supported by a good prima facie

case, evidence of which we are prepared to make available to you.

"2.

If the provincial government were to implement the proposed changes, in

our view, infringements of aboriginal title and rights would result, and the

provincial Crown will have failed to fulfil its fiduciary duty of utmost good

faith to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council nations .

[1635]

"In

Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Weyerhaeuser 2002 BCCA 147, the declaration

granted by the court affirmed that the provincial Crown had and continues to

have a legally enforceable duty to the Haida to consult with them in good faith

and endeavour to seek workable accommodation with respect to the granting of

tenures, other alienation of resources and management of the land in question.

"The

B.C. Court of Appeal also made clear that this duty exists before

aboriginal title and rights are determined in a court of competent

jurisdiction."

move on to another paragraph, but from the same letter.

"It

has been widely publicized that your government has initiated negotiations with

timber industry representatives about a number of issues, ranging from the

industry self-management in the results-based code, timber targets in the

working forest, timber companies setting logging rates through defined forest

areas management and altering how forest tenures are allocated, subdivided and

transferred in the context of the softwood discussions. All of these discussions

have so far excluded first nations, despite the impact they will have on

aboriginal rights.

"In

addition to our significant concerns about the lack of adequate

consultation, we wish to highlight the following issues. Results-based code

deregulation that reduces the information available — maps, assessments,

inventories, specific site-level locations of cutblocks and roads — in

operational plans and eliminates government approval of site-level plans is a

concern.

"Proposals

to streamline and limit mandatory planning requirements in forest

stewardship plans and site-level plans will disable first nations from

adequately assessing which cultural values or rights may be affected. This

change will therefore increase the potential for infringement of aboriginal

rights and titles.

"Eliminating

plan approvals or limiting the circumstances in which approval can be

withheld will also impede the provincial government's ability to meet their duty

to ensure aboriginal title and rights are accommodated."

The

letter then goes on to say…. They raise several other concerns, but because we

are on the Forest Practices Code, results-based code, I am only raising that one

concern in the context of this legislation. The letter concludes by saying:

"We

now consider you to be aware of the existence of evidence related to our prima

facie case related to aboriginal title and rights, of anticipated infringement

on our title and rights, and the inadequacies of the consultation and

accommodation in relation to the provincial government proposals outlined above.

"Please

be advised that we are considering the full range of legal and financial

options available to us to defend our title and rights. The most prudent course

to avoid further litigation would be to forgo legal implementation of these

proposals.

"We

look forward to your prompt reply. Please contact" — they gave a

contact — "to discuss a meeting date to further discuss how you will be

seeking workable accommodation of our title and rights."

This

issue is key to the well-being of our province. Despite the Minister of Finance

dismissing the Carrier-Sekani concerns by saying, "What a surprise,"

he as Minister of Finance needs to be deeply concerned about the Carrier-Sekani

challenge. He knows full well that the people who invest in this province —

the investment houses in New York, in Montreal, in Chicago and in Toronto —

ask one question when a Minister of Finance goes to visit them to encourage

investment in British Columbia. They say: "When will you be able to

guarantee land use certainty prior to investment?"

[ Page 4353 ]

They said it throughout the 1990s, and they continue to say it now.

[1640]

Their

second question is: "When will you be achieving treaty settlements? When

will land claim negotiations be completed?" That's question No. 1 and

question No. 2 that investment houses throughout North America ask about. So

what's this government doing?

I would

suggest that the concerns articulated by the Carrier-Sekani and reiterated by

the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — because I spoke

with both of them in the last week — will be as damaging to the well-being of

B.C.'s economy as any alarm being set off about market campaigns against the

lumber industry. In fact, I guarantee it. It is time for the Minister of

Forests, for this government, to sit down with first nations and address their

legal concerns and their economic concerns and to address their legal rights and

the economic rights that flow from their legal rights.

Another

area where we will eventually be finding the direction of the government is

around professional bodies. The government has indicated that it's going to make

changes to various pieces of legislation affecting professional bodies like

foresters, agrologists and biologists, and we've been told the intent is to

ensure professional accountability in a results-based regime. Fair enough. We

look forward to that legislation. But let me put some concerns for the minister

to address and raise some uncertainties around this. There is time to answer my

concerns and my questions before the legislation is introduced. We have had some

discussions with the chief forester on these matters, but my questions remain.

If a

professional forester, just as an example, has the obligation to uphold the

public interest but is employed by a private interest, how does the forester

reconcile that conflicting situation? We know that the code of ethics of the

foresters has a list of ethics which they have to uphold. In those ethics, the

obligation to uphold the public interest is included, but so is an obligation to

the employer included. If those are at odds in their carrying out of their

ethical responsibilities, how is that matter reconciled? What carries the higher

obligation — the public interest or the obligation to their employer? How do

they go against their employer and report that?

Yes,

there's whistle-blower legislation.

Section 119 has whistle-blower legislation,

but I must tell you, we need to understand how that whistle-blower protection

— which is the same as it was under the previous code — works with the

results-based code where there is now a much greater obligation on the company

professional to uphold the public interest, because the public service won't be

doing it. What will happen to the professional who gets caught between their

employer and their duties under the new legislation?

[1645]

Also, we've

been talking to the IWA and have had good discussions with the IWA. Workers want

to be assured that the same vicarious liability provisions that existed under

the current statute remain in place. For the public's information, this relates

to the company taking responsibility for the actions of its workers unless there

is a clear case of wanton or willful negligence on the part of the worker.

That's vicarious liability. It existed under the old code, and workers want to

know that that liability protection still exists. That protection is there on

the assumption that when workers do something in the woods, it is because the

company gave them that direction; therefore, the company is responsible.

Furthermore,

workers are also concerned that this isn't an indication that health and safety

concerns might also go to a results-based program. They want assurances that

that's not going to be the case. They want assurances that there won't be fewer

WCB inspections. WCB inspections, if anything, need to be increased in the

forest to root out bad and unsafe practices.

Lastly on

this matter, the forest education network should be involved in the training.

The government should be aware that in the past, there was a tripartite process

wherein industry, government and labour jointly developed a peer training

program to ensure that all workers had adequate training in new legislation.

They want assurances that that will be a feature again of this legislation.

I sincerely

hope the government caucus MLAs don't stand up and just say that all was bad in

the past, that everything will be good now and that the Leader of the Opposition

was raising conspiracy theories, fearmongering and didn't know what she was

talking about. I have deliberately ensured a thoughtful discussion where I posed

questions for this government to address as they get up and speak, because these

are the concerns that are being raised out in the community.

I want to

close by discussing what else is going on in our forest sector. The

results-based code is just one piece that's being discussed in every

forest-dependent community, in industry, amongst environmental groups and

amongst first nations. The end to the appurtenancy clause is being discussed.

The working forests legislation is months down the road. That could address the

issues of tenure and pricing. It could address the issues of cut control,

whether it continues or goes. There's discussion about changes in the annual

allowable cut. All of that is still to be determined.

You can't

look at these things in isolation. If there are going to be substantial changes

in those areas, what will be the impact on a results-based Forest Practices

Code? We don't know, because this government is piecemealing all of these

issues. We get to see a little glimpse here, and then months down the road we

get to see another glimpse. Yet all of the pieces make up one picture, and every

piece has to be put in place before we can possibly judge whether our province

has a sustainable future and whether it will be good for the forest industry.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

The

softwood lumber dispute remains unresolved. Who knows what's happening on that

front? The

[ Page 4354 ]

Americans want open log markets. They want log exports. They want unfettered

log exports. That will have an impact on everything that's being discussed

today. It will have an impact on the well-being of the industry. Perhaps one

would say that the working forest legislation we've been waiting months for and

an end to the softwood lumber dispute will have far greater impact on our

forest-dependent communities and the workers therein.

[1650]

Yet I also

know that we must know the conclusion of the softwood lumber dispute and the

details that will conclude the softwood lumber dispute — whether we can

possibly judge the sustainability of our industry and whether this government

will live up to its commitment to protect the environment in British Columbia. I

would also suggest that the industry's well-being and ability to make a profit

rest far more greatly on knowing the contents of the working forest legislation

and the details of a resolve to the softwood lumber dispute.

My final

comment will be that until those pieces are in place, this government needs to

keep an open dialogue with all of the stakeholders, with the public. It needs to

keep an open mind to public input. It needs to live up to its obligation of

engaging the public in these extremely important policy matters before

implementing any of these changes.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The second reading debate on Bill 74 will

continue after just a very short recess of two or three minutes.

The House

recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: The debate continues at second reading of Bill 74.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to offer my support for Bill 74 in

British Columbia. This is

an act that doesn't just deal with the heartland of

our province but actually goes to the heart of our economy and what this

government is trying to accomplish as we look to building a stronger, more

prosperous future for all British Columbians.

There is no

industry that's more critical to our economic well-being than forestry.

Literally thousands of British Columbians count on forestry for their

livelihoods. Thousands of British Columbians count on forestry to pay their

mortgages and to support their children's education. Thousands of British

Columbians depend on forestry directly to cover off their future and to be sure

that they have the kind of future they deserve.

[1655]

Over the

last ten years, while there has been a commitment to sustainable forest

practices and environmentally sustainable stewardship, there was a significant

problem. Our forests were overwhelmed with paper and with red tape. The people

of this province suffered as a result of that. They suffered to the extent that

a previous Forests minister from a previous government told British Columbians

that the Forest Practices Code itself had cost the industry, the economy, $1

billion for no environmental benefit and no public benefit. Over 10,000

regulations were imposed as a result of the Forest Practices Code.

Now, what

motivates that kind of response to public policy is, fundamentally, a lack of

trust in the people who are involved in the forest industry. I want the workers

of our forest industry to understand that this government trusts them. This

government wants to work with them and to tap into their expertise as we build a

forest industry that's not just globally competitive but globally recognized for

its environmental stewardship.

We should

have no illusions. Those who try to divide off those who work in the forest

industry from those who care about our environment clearly do not understand the

women and men who are at work in our forest industry. Those who suggest that our

resource industries are somehow taking away from our environment clearly don't

understand how the forest industry works.

Indeed,

British Columbia's stewardship of our forests is one of our major environmental

assets. One of the great things we have to offer as we look to clean up our

environment, clean up our climate and reduce greenhouse gases is the incredible

commitment of British Columbians to plant five billion trees over the last two

decades. I believe we can do even more when we listen to the people that are at

work on the ground.

It's easy

for us to stand in the Legislature and lose track of the fact that there are

people walking the grounds of British Columbia, the commons of British Columbia,

day in and day out. They're walking to make sure we have a sustainable, healthy

forest future. They're walking to make sure we understand what is at work in our

forests so that we do indeed husband that resource in a way that provides for

the long-term future of all British Columbians.

As I

travelled the province, whether I was in Vavenby or Valemount, whether I was in

Prince George or Clinton, whether I was in Terrace or Smithers, whether I was in

Cranbrook or Fernie, I would meet with people who were directly and immediately

involved with the forest land base, with our forest industry. These were people

who cared deeply about our environmental stewardship. They were people we hired

to help us make sure that as we proceeded with taking advantage of the economic

asset we have, we were doing it in a way that was fundamentally sound in terms

of environmental stewardship and sound science.

I can

recall stopping in Salmon Arm and talking with one of our public sector

employees in the Forests ministry, who said: "You know, I went to school so

I could understand our forests. I went to school so I could understand how our

forests were at play in the environment, what a forest ecology did. What I get

[ Page 4355 ]

do as a result of all that training is sit here in my office and fill out

pieces of paper, which travel I know not where and accomplish I know not

what." He was frustrated because he felt he could make a larger

contribution on the land base, working with the people who were involved in the

industry.

This piece

of legislation tells all of our front-line workers that we value their

expertise, we value their commitment to British Columbia's forests, and we value

the contribution they will make to be sure our forests are not just well managed

economically but are sustainably managed environmentally. That is an incredible

resource that we have in this province.

[1700]

I want to

start by saying that I believe the process we used to build this piece of

legislation was also something new. It was a process that brought in the

expertise of our institutions of advanced learning, with Dr. Hoberg, but it was

also a process that deliberately went out and invited constructive comment and

constructive criticism. The member opposite, the member for Vancouver-Hastings,

pointed out in her comments today that she was trying to raise some legitimate

concerns.

Let me tell

you this: we will take those legitimate concerns, and I know the Minister of

Forests will have answers for those legitimate concerns, because every British

Columbian will benefit from a strong and vital Forest and Range Practices Act

that works for all of us in this province.

I think

there's no question that had the previous government, which imposed the previous

forest practices act on our industry and on our work