H1023pm 07

H1023pm 07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, October 23, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, October 23, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7479 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7479 Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78) Hon. C. Clark Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 80) Hon. G.

Plant Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83) Hon. K. Falcon Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7480 Surrey business excellence awards D. Hayer NEPTUNE ocean research project S. Orr Small business in B.C. W.

Cobb Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7481 Loss of income assistance benefits and comments by Liberal MLA J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott Hon. G. Hogg Payment of wages to forest fire fighters J. Kwan Hon. G. Collins Substance abuse in Vancouver L. Mayencourt Hon. G. Cheema Government support for small business R. Lee Hon. K. Falcon Court costs for unsuccessful litigants T. Bhullar Hon. G. Plant Employment in oil and gas industry B. Lekstrom Hon. R.

Neufeld Ministerial Statements ......................................................................................................... .................................................... 7484 Payment of wages to forest fire fighters Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7484 Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46) Hon. S. Hagen P. Bell T. Christensen J. MacPhail B. Suffredine L. Mayencourt W. Cobb G. Trumper R. Visser J. Bray M.

Hunter Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 7504 Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35) Business Number Act (Bill 36) Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37) Personal Information Protection Act (Bill 38) Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41) Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42) Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44) Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53) Environmental Management Act (Bill 57) Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62) Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65) Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68) Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69) Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70) Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74) Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)

7479 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge members of the Wallonian Parliament in Belgium who are with us. They are visiting to learn more about technological development, research and skills training in British Columbia. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Jean Bock, Mrs. Andrée Leonard, Mrs. Nicole Docq, Mrs. Florine Pary-Mille, Mrs. Monique Vlaminck-Moreau, Mr. Pierre Wacquier, Mrs. Josiane Dinoir and Miss Genevieve Berchem.

I am pleased they have trav- elled to British Columbia to discover the many op- portunities our beautiful province presents. Would the House please make them feel welcome this af- ternoon. [1405] D. MacKay: Today I'm pleased to have two guests in the gallery. But before I introduce these two guests, I would like to remind the caucus of a planned Hungarian goulash dinner scheduled for November 4, made with moose meat from the north- ern part of this province.

I would like to introduce the two women who have prepared this meal for November 4, and I would ask House to join me in thanking my wife and her sister Patricia for the great meal you're going to have on November 4. J. Wilson: Today is one of those rare occasions when I can get up in the House and welcome some friends from my constituency, and it's indeed a pleasure. Today we have Darwin Netzel and his wife Gail here, and with them is Sherill Clogg. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome. P.

Bell: I'm not sure whether I have pre-empted my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson or not, but I see that joining us in the gallery today we have our two most capable legislative assistants: the one that has been with us for some two and a half years now and our favourite ranch hand, Steven Puhallo, and our brand-new legislative assistant, Erin Darling. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to tell you about 27 wonderful people who do just a great job in the Cowichan Valley for our seniors.

As you know, I've been working very hard over the last little while trying to find as many friends as I can, so I'd like to name all 27. No, I'm sorry, I won't do that. Would you please join with me and welcome these people and thank them for the wonderful job they do in advising seniors through the Cowichan Valley? Thank you all very much. Introduction and First Reading of Bills ACCOUNTANTS (CHARTERED) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Clark presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Account- ants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 78, intituled Ac- countants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Clark: This bill amends the Accountants (Chartered) Act, which established the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. The institute is a self-regulating professional body that governs the practice of accounting by its members and students. This bill is the result of extensive consulta- tions with the institute.

The bill will enhance consumer protection, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and strengthen public representation in the governance of the chartered accounting profession in British Columbia. It will also broaden access to membership in the institute. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 78 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. [1410] Hon. G. Plant: Legislation is required to rectify errors in the appointment of the police complaint commissioner. The current police complaint commissioner was ap- pointed by royal commission rather than by order-in- council.

We have prepared enabling legislation that will retroactively appoint the current police complaint com- missioner, validate decisions made while he was acting under his flawed appointment, and authorize his com- pensation and benefits. The office of the legislative coun- sel, the Ministry of Attorney General and the office of the Speaker are working on a protocol respecting ap-

7480 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 pointment of officers of the Legislative Assembly so that errors of this nature will be avoided in the future. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 80 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT H o n . K .

F a l c o n p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pa- cific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Falcon: For nearly 100 years British Colum- bians have enjoyed the Pacific National Exhibition. The proposed amendments will give the city of Vancouver authority to appoint board members to the PNE board of directors. This will effectively transfer control of the PNE corp. to the city. City-appointed members would com- prise the PNE board as of January 1, 2004.

We are doing this because we feel that the municipal level of govern- ment is actually best suited to manage the decisions of the PNE and, based on consultation with stakeholder groups, to develop the future direction of the PNE. We are also proposing amendments to the Hastings Park Trust. The Hastings Park Trust was established in 1889, granting Hastings Park to the city as the trustee for "the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public." Since that time, the uses of the lands have evolved, and the trust is now being amended to reflect the current uses of Hastings Park.

The amendments confirm the l a n d g r a n t o f H a s t i n g s P a r k t o t h e c i t y o f V a n c o u v e r , expanding the city of Vancouver's ability to authorize future uses and activities at Hastings Park that fit within new parameters specified in the legislation. The powers of the PNE are also expanded to parallel the potential uses of Hastings Park. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to talk about my community of Surrey and the dynamic business scene we have in British Columbia's second-largest city. As we recognize Small Business Week across the province, I would like to de- scribe how vibrant Surrey's business community is and how each year we recognize the best of the best. Last night I, along with caucus members for Surrey– Green Timbers and Surrey–Panorama Ridge, was part of a business excellence awards ceremony hosted by the Surrey Chamber of Commerce.

Each year I make it a point to be there to congratulate all those who win and all those who are named as finalists, because in Surrey we have many entrepreneurs and businesses worthy of such a distinction. Any individual or busi- ness that makes it as a finalist is as much a winner as the one who takes the final award. I would like to take this opportunity to list those outstanding businesses and congratulate the employ- ees that make them so successful.

First, the student entrepreneur of the year is a Surrey-Tynehead con- stituent and student of Fraser Heights Secondary School, Cam McKenzie, of Total Ground Effects Ltd. Business excellence: one to ten employees is RSM Automotive Ltd. Business excellence: 11 to 50 employ- ees is Foundex Explorations Ltd. Business excellence: over 50 employees is Beachcomber Hot Tubs Inc. New entrepreneur of the year is Just One Drop Water Shop, and the business person of the year is Kathleen Casprowitz, who is a partner in Sylvan Learning Cen- tre.

I would ask that all members of the House join me in congratulating all these outstanding business people from my community of Surrey. [1415] NEPTUNE OCEAN RESEARCH PROJECT S. Orr: Neptune. What does that conjure up in your mind? Perhaps a fish restaurant? Maybe Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ? Well, let me tell you how important that word has become not only to Victoria but to the rest of the world.

NEPTUNE — this amazing project announced last week by our Minister of Ad- vanced Education on behalf of the Premier, where we committed this government to $30.5 million — will advance our position as a world leader in science and technology, where we are going to learn more about our oceans than we have ever learned before. Over the centuries traditional methods have been used to explore our oceans, mainly using ships and only really offering glimpses of what is going on be- neath the waves.

The NEPTUNE project will lay a 3,000-kilometre network of power and fibre optic cable on the seabed over the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate. This plate is the smallest of the dozen that make up the planet surface. This network will feature 30 or more sea floor labs, and then information gathered by NEP- TUNE will flow instantly via the Internet to shore sta- tions in Victoria and Oregon. Imagine. We are going to bring the deep ocean and its living form on line to the world, and we are going to finally know what is going on down there. We have

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7481 propelled men to outer space. Now we are finally go- ing to unravel millions of years of secrets about the Earth's inner space, and it's happening right here in British Columbia. That is incredible. SMALL BUSINESS IN B.C. W. Cobb: As we all know, this is Small Business Week, and in honour of that, I turn our attention to the sector of our economy that is truly the driving force for employment in British Columbia. People of B.C. are working in all sorts of exciting and fulfilling fields.

The vast majority of people work for companies and busi- nesses with fewer than 50 employees. In fact, most are operators of small businesses of fewer than five em- ployees. The numbers paint a clear picture. Small busi- ness accounts for almost 90 percent of all businesses in the province, and 83 percent, or about 250,000 busi- n e s s e s , f a l l w i t h i n t h a t c a t e g o r y o f f i v e e m p l o y e e s o r less. The momentum has been building since our gov- ernment took office. After three consecutive years of decline, there was a turnaround.

The total number of small businesses grew by 3.1 percent last year. The entrepreneurial spirit has an army of more than 950,000 employees marching us forward. According to the Sco- tiabank report released just this month, B.C. is leading the nation in small enterprise employment. I hav e b e e n p art o f t hat m o ve m e nt . I n ru ral B . C . I am surrounded by small business ventures. I ran a small business of my own for 36 years, and my family is now taking up the torch. Also, many, many of our members in the House are small business owner- operators.

At this time, Small Business Week, we celebrate the calculated risk and sacrifices of the entrepreneur. Thanks to the chambers of commerce throughout the province who have promoted and supported small businesses. I encourage customers to think of their lo- cal business whenever they make a purchase. Every purchase at a small business is a vote of confidence in our local and provincial economy. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions LOSS OF INCOME ASSISTANCE BENEFITS AND COMMENTS BY LIBERAL MLA J.

MacPhail: This morning the member for Vancouver- Burrard called Vancouver city councillor Jim Green "a poverty pimp who has been advancing his political agenda off the backs of the poor in Vancouver for more than a decade." Jim Green has been raising concerns that as a result of this Liberal government's cuts to in- come assistance, there will be even more people in need of social housing in Vancouver. Does the minister responsible for social housing agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard that Jim Green is a poverty pimp? Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm not familiar with the member's comments, so I wouldn't comment on that. I know we are working with the city of Vancouver to ensure that people have housing when they need it and that they have affordable housing, and we look forward to con- tinuing that very productive relationship. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. [1420] J. MacPhail: Not only did the member for Vancou- ver-Burrard call Mr. Green a poverty pimp at ten this morning, he repeated those comments entering the Legislature just moments ago.

Instead of flying off the handle and calling people names, the member for Vancouver-Burrard could have acted maturely. Actu- ally, he could have responded to Mr. Green's legitimate concerns by telling the public how many people the government expects to lose benefits in order to meet its $168 million budget reduction target. Let me ask the backup minister to the Minister of Human Resources. Jim Green's concerns about thou- sands of income recipients being kicked off by this government — do they make him a poverty pimp, ac- cording to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, or are Mr. Green's concerns baseless?

All the government could do to prove that is to fill in the blank. The FOI has been shown to this minister. The government knows the number. How many people will be kicked off income assistance to cover the $168 million cut? Hon. G. Hogg: The member for Vancouver-Burrard and this government are all very concerned about those people on income assistance and are provid- ing…. We just happen to have a different perspective in terms of how we can best address that issue.

This government believes that employment is the best op- p o r t u n i t y , t h e v e r y b e s t s o c i a l p r o g r a m , t h a t c a n e x i s t for people in this province. The member for Vancouver- Burrard was making reference to that issue. That is an approach that means stability for families. It means stability in terms of being able to deal with their self- worth and their way of approaching themselves in the world.

I want to remind this House that we went through this process some time ago with the issue of disabilities and the forms that were filled out, and there were his- trionics, calling out and saying there was going to be doom and gloom. The result of that process was not the 19,000 people being removed from the rolls that the opposition said. In fact, there was an increase of 6,600 people receiving those services. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: No wonder no one wants to actually acknowledge what the member for Vancouver-Burrard said.

He called Jim Green, the city councillor, a poverty pimp, and he said Jim Green didn't know what he was

7482 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 talking about in terms of how many people were going to be kicked off income assistance. I t i s c l e a r t h i s g o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t w a n t t o m a k e that number public. Here's the FOI with that very number blanked out. The government's been hiding it for weeks, choosing instead to call people ridiculous names and, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard now knows, to make themselves look foolish. Again, to the Minister of Human Resources's backup guy: no more name-calling, no more bluster, no more spin.

If he thinks Jim Green is wrong and the member for Vancouver-Burrard is right to call Jim Green a poverty pimp, just fill in the blank. What is the number? Fill in the blank. Hon. G. Hogg: I want to remind this House that anyone who cannot work — anyone with physical, emotional or intellectual reasons — will be fully pro- t e c t e d b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t . T h i s g o v e r n m e n t w i l l t a k e care of them. Time limits are about employable people who won't work or who won't work training. As I said yesterday in this House…. Let me reiter- ate what the minister said earlier this week.

He has instructed his staff to prepare a report for him regard- ing the number of clients affected by time limits, and he will receive that by the end of April. I can assure you that the MHR staff are working hard in looking at those numbers and that the minister will have those numbers available in January. Those numbers will re- flect a direction and a focus towards stability and en- suring we support the most vulnerable in this province in ways that they need to be supported. PAYMENT OF WAGES TO FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS J.

Kwan: As the minister responsible for paying the bills on time knows, the people of Barriere and Louis Creek are still waiting for help. As it turns out, so are many of the firefighters who put out the fires and who are still waiting to be paid. That's causing a lot of extra hardship for many firefighters. To the minister respon- sible for provincial revenues: when can these firefight- ers expect to be paid? [1425] Hon. G. Collins: As the members opposite know, I would think — and if they don't, I'll be glad to advise them…. Interjections. Hon. G.

Collins: The costs of the forest fire and the task that was undertaken to put out those forest fires were monumental. It was a huge job not just for the firefighters but also for all of those processing the types of invoices that have come in as well. Government is doing everything in its power to ensure that invoices are paid as quickly as possible. We'll continue to do that. I think people will be able to find some good news on that in the very near future. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J.

Kwan: After the fires were out, the government ran an expensive ad — a campaign featuring a photo of a Seattle firefighter. My guess is that the government paid that bill immediately. It seems the people who actually put out the fires are treated quite differently by this government. No one asked the big ad agencies to be patient. Their bills got paid promptly, but this government is asking the firefighters to be patient.

Again, to the Minister of Provincial Revenue — whose only job is to make sure bills are paid on time — when he gets back to his office, will he get on the phone, call his deputy and make sure the government does the right thing for once and get these firefighters paid immediately? Hon. G. Collins: Everyone in British Columbia is incredibly thankful for the work that those firefighters did in putting out those fires. Until this very day, every British Columbian was trying to do their best to deal with this issue and to make sure it was done in the most timely fashion possible.

Those invoices will be paid as soon as they possibly can be…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: We all appreciate the work that they've done. J. MacPhail: So pay them. It's outrageous. Hon. G. Collins: No, Mr. Speaker, what's outra- geous is that that member would sink so low as to raise the issue and pretend somehow that the government of British Columbia isn't doing everything that's possible to pay for those people who put their lives on the line to defend every British Columbian so successfully. That's what's shameful.

If that member is running out of things to raise in question period and she has to sink that low, I'll be glad to volunteer time to help her come up with some- thing that matters to the people of British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN VANCOUVER L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Trafficking in the abuse of drugs like crystal meth has risen at a very exponential rate in my community, particularly amongst youth and members of the gay community.

These drugs cause long-term harm. Some leave these people in a psy-

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7483 chotic state — sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for days and sometimes for a lifetime. They often result in violent behaviour as well. Because of this violent behaviour, youth centres and transition houses have had to turn away youth from their centres. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health please tell me…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order, or we'll terminate question period right now. L.

Mayencourt: Can the minister please explain what the Vancouver coastal health authority is doing to deal with this problem? [1430] Hon. G. Cheema: This is a very serious issue and a growing problem. Methamphetamine is an inexpen- sive, easy-to-make, extremely dangerous drug that produces violent and self-destructive behaviour and damage to the brain of the person using this drug. Presently there are very low treatment successes for meth addictions. A methamphetamine response committee was founded in January of this year.

It includes reps from Vancouver coastal health, the RCMP, the Vancouver police, the city of Vancouver and the service providers. This committee is focusing its work on three areas: (1) demand reduction, (2) professional education and (3) prevention and treatment. This committee has recently applied for treatment research funding and funding for psychosis and meth-use beds from the Canadian Insti- tutes of Health Research. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESS R. Lee: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f S t a t e f o r Deregulation.

This week is national Small Business Week, which recognizes the immense contribution of small and medium businesses to our Canadian econ- omy. In British Columbia, small businesses with fewer than five employees make up the majority of all busi- nesses, and this sector is continuing to grow each year. Can the minister tell British Columbians what he is doing to create a climate where small businesses can develop and thrive? Hon. K. Falcon: Under the leadership of our Pre- mier and Finance minister, we introduced some very dramatic changes to the tax system.

We had in British Columbia, under the previous NDP government, one of the highest marginal tax rates in North America. A 25 percent personal income tax cut and a cut in the business tax rate to make sure we were competitive with Alberta have changed the environment in British Columbia.

When you add in the fact that we've reduced the red tape and regulatory burden by almost 17 percent, which means eliminating almost 80,000 unnecessary regulations in British Columbia; when you include the changes we made to the Small Business Venture Capi- tal Act, which will help create more pools of invest- ment that will be invested in the heartlands of British Columbia; when you consider the changes the Securi- ties Commission has made to the new capital-raising exemption rule, which has raised over a billion dollars in new capital for small business in the last 12 months alone — all of this is creating the kind of climate that is creating one of the highest levels of confidence for small business in the country.

COURT COSTS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANTS T. Bhullar: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently there's been a contemplation of raising the tariff to approximately 50 percent of real costs to un- successful parties in the superior courts in this prov- ince. My question to the Attorney General is: will this not have a chilling effect on potential litigants and thereby deny them their day in court? Hon. G.

Plant: There is a review underway being conducted by the Supreme Court Rules Committee, the chair of which is a justice of the Supreme Court and the membership of which includes members of the judici- ary and members of the bar. They're posing the ques- tion whether it's time to have a look at the tariff, which has not been updated in British Columbia since about 1990. We have a longstanding tradition in British Colum- bia that parties who do not succeed in civil litigation are expected to bear some of the costs associated with that.

One of the longstanding principles behind that is to discourage frivolous litigation and encourage set- tlement. Those are good principles. The review is underway. I believe that the commit- tee is still receiving submissions. If the member has his own views on that, I encourage him to make them known. I look forward to the work of the committee. I know they, too, are trying to strike the balance that is implied in the member's question, and I'm confident they will do that in a way that ensures the interests of all litigants are protected. EMPLOYMENT IN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY B.

Lekstrom: Today my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. B.C.'s booming oil and gas indus- try continues to be driven by the Peace River region, providing opportunities that could translate into thou- sands of well-paying jobs for residents of British Co- lumbia. However, a recent study by the North Peace eco- nomic development commission suggests that despite the tremendous growth in this sector, many of the op- portunities are going to people who live in Alberta. To the Minister of Energy and Mines: what steps can be taken to ensure that local employment opportunities

7484 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 and benefits flow to British Columbians, who rightfully deserve them? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, there are two parts to this question, and I'll clarify it. The report that was just recently released by the North Peace economic devel- opment commission is a report that looks backwards. It was actually commissioned by the last government. The NDP, in the dying days of their election, commis- sioned this report because they had ignored the north- east.

They had totally ignored the northeast as far as jobs go, and all they wanted to do was drag money out of the northeast down south here. [1435] What we did immediately when we went into of- fice — the second part of the question — was reduce taxes to encourage those industries that had left British Columbia to come back. This year we have invested $70 million in road infrastructure in northeastern B.C. That is an all-time high. We looked at royalty changes that would encour- age year-round drilling so that people could actually work year-round and live in the northeast.

That's actu- ally happening, as we speak, in the short 24 or 26 months that we've been in office. We've had a service sector strategy that we're implementing, which we worked with people in the northeast to develop so that we can actually get those sectors in the northeast work- ing in the oil and gas industry. It is all good news. Our Northern Lights College has had donations of millions of dollars for training. This is all good news for people in the northeast.

If you go up and ask the business people in northeast B.C. or the people that are working in those businesses, they are extremely happy with what's going on. [End of question period.] Ministerial Statements PAYMENT OF WAGES TO FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS Hon. G. Collins: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague raised questions about the payment of receipts to forest fire fighters. I want to put on the record the response the government has taken to date. The worst fire season on record in British Columbia was 2003, and it's stretching resources of various ministries to and beyond the limit.

At the peak, there were 7,600 firefighters and personnel involved in fighting the fires. The ten-year average is 1,850. This year a large portion of those firefighters were contractors. Government usually takes between 30 and 60 days to process payments to all contractors. On Au- gust 25 the ministries of Forests and Finance put in place a system for immediate payment of all protection branch and fire site invoices. Four additional staff have been hired to ensure that invoices received in Ministry of Forests headquarters are being processed for pay- ment within two days.

More staff will be brought in as the volume of work increases so invoices can continue to be processed in a timely fashion. Administrative staff have also been deployed di- rectly to fire centres. They've left their positions else- where in government and have attended directly to the fire centres to assist with the work and ensure that the flow of invoices continues to headquarters. As well, three additional staff have been added to deal specifi- cally with the massive increase in supplier codes and to ensure that new supplier codes are entered first thing every morning.

The office of the comptroller general is dealing with the Ministry of Forests on a priority basis, before those of other ministries. The Ministry of Finance is process- ing electronic fund transfer requests on a priority basis, as well, for the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Management Services has extended the working hours for the operation of the corporate accounting system. Government and the people who work in the pub- lic sector are doing everything possible to ensure that this occurs in a timely and efficient fashion.

I would urge any forest fire fighters who have not received timely payment to contact the Ministry of Forests im- mediately, and they'll be put on a priority basis. Hon. G. Hogg: I s e e k l e a v e t o m a k e a n i n t r o d u c - tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Hogg: In the gallery today is a former member of this House, a former representative of the Surrey–White Rock area, a former chairperson of the Surrey–White Rock Chamber of Commerce and of the Cloverdale and District Chamber of Commerce, and a tireless community worker. Would the House please welcome Bill Reid.

Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading debate of Bill 46. Second Reading of Bills LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen: It is my pleasure to move the bill now be read for a second time and to introduce the bill that proposes amendments to the Land Act. [1440] British Columbia's economy depends on a vibrant and healthy resource development sector, which in turn depends on secure and certain access to Crown lands for its success.

This government has made a commitment to revitalize and rationalize the way in which strategic land and resource use decisions get made, decisions that balance the needs of economic growth with those of environmental protection. This

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7485 will provide more clarity respecting the rules that ap- ply to resource developers and increased investment on the Crown-owned resources in the public interest. These commitments will be achieved in part through the introduction of an addition to the Land Act. These amendments will provide the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish desig- nations on specific areas of Crown land. The Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council will also be able to set manage- ment objectives for the resources located in that desig- nated area.

By establishing this decision-making authority at the highest levels of government, these amendments will ensure that resource management decisions are balanced and reflect both economic de- velopment and environmental values. In the near term, we expect to use this authority to implement a key government priority: the designation of a working forest. I want to be clear that these amendments do not in themselves create the working forest. The amendment simply enables the Lieutenant- Governor in-Council to make designations such as the working forest.

I also want to dispel any concerns that the legisla- tion will lead to the privatization of our forests. To the contrary, this legislation ensures that B.C.'s forests can be designated by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and thus remain a public resource to be managed in perpe- tuity for this generation and future generations. The actual designation of the working forest will occur through a cabinet order, and this is where the concerns of the public and stakeholders can and will be ad- dressed.

We have listened to the substance of the pub- lic input on the working forest, and I'm confident that al l o f t he k e y c o nc e rn s c an b e p u t t o re s t as we m o v e forward. In addition to the working forest, the amendments to the Land Act will enable streamlined implementa- tion of other resource management planning decisions, including outcomes of land use planning tables that to date have not had the benefit of dedicated legislative tools intended to make the product of these broad- based processes a reality.

The ability to establish a designation could also be used to support economic development through desig- nating land that is suitable for particular economic purposes. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will not be able to make a designation that conflicts with other designations under existing legislation, such as a park. This will ensure that consistency with current legis- lated land uses is maintained when designations are made. The legislation will provide government officials with clear direction respecting what uses are permitted within a designation.

This will be done by establishing clear objectives for designations via a cabinet order. For example, an order under this legislation can be used to provide resource targets for any number of resource values, including tourism, mineral development, con- servation, timber availability, etc. Objectives estab- lished by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for each designation can be made to apply to any government official responsible for approving licences, permits or other authorizations.

Another provision in the proposed amendments will enable the Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement to establish objectives for the purposes of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The legislation essen- tially continues authorities currently contained in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, as this latter act is phased out over the coming years. Many objectives established under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act will be continued as legal ob- jectives under the Land Act. [1445] The amendments are also closely harmonized with the Forest and Range Practices Act.

It has been made clear that objectives established under the Land Act will be the most powerful among the various types of forestry objectives established by government. This is entirely appropriate, since the objectives established under this legislation will reflect the carefully balanced land use direction arising from existing and new land use plans. The government is committed to maintaining a role for the public in the developing of these forest and range objectives, and prior to any of these objectives being established, there will be an opportunity for the public to review and comment on them.

This will en- able the public to ensure that the objectives reflect their aspirations for the management of public forest re- s o u r c e s . W e w i l l a l s o c o n t i n u e t o m e e t o u r c o m m i t - ments to consult with first nations and, where appro- priate, to accommodate potential impacts of land use objectives on their asserted rights and title. These amendments will enable this government to efficiently implement clear and balanced decisions re- specting how and where Crown resources are to be developed.

This will improve the climate of certainty that the resource industry requires and will ensure that public and first nation values for the management of Crown resources continue to be respected. It gives me great pleasure to move second reading. P. Bell: I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill 46 today.

The Minister of Energy and Mines has coined a phrase for our government, and that phrase is: "More good news." This is, for me, some of the best news this provincial government has developed in the past two and a half years, and I would like to take some time today to relay exactly why I believe this is significant in terms of the progress of, particularly, rural British Co- lumbia. Let's make no mistake. Rural British Columbia drives the economy of British Columbia.

Without rural British Columbia and the resources that we provide to urban British Columbia, urban British Columbia would b e j u s t a s h a d o w o f w h a t i t i s t o d a y . T h e w o n d e r f u l , tall concrete buildings that are in the riding of my col- league the member for Vancouver-Burrard would not exist if it were not for the forest industry, the mining industry and the energy industry. As much as he would perhaps like to believe it was self-sustaining, I think he would find that's not the case.

7486 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 In fact, some of the early logging in our province was done in the lower mainland, and one of the largest clearcuts, I believe, is Vancouver, if I'm not mistaken. The working landscape and the concepts that relate to the working landscape are absolutely critical to the long-term wealth of our province, so I'd like to com- ment on what this legislation is really about. This legislation is about doing things like improv- ing access to the land base. This legislation is about working with first nations, which is absolutely critical in this new era.

This legislation is, more importantly, about really ensuring that we have tenure security over the land base, and that is the one thing I consistently hear in my part of the world that's very important from a business investment perspective. When you talk about business, I'll tell you what this legislation is about. It's about actually enhancing B.C.'s business climate. It's about improving B.C.'s business climate. It's about actually creating opportunities for investment. More than anything else, this legislation is actually about opening up new markets to the world.

When the world looks at the practices this province participates in, especially in terms of land use plan- ning, I think it will see we are truly the most environ- mentally friendly province or component of the world — period. So this legislation is about all kinds of really positive things. I'll tell you what this legislation is not about, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not about selling off our land. In fact, this legislation absolutely dictates that you cannot sell off Crown land in the future, not on a large basis for forest resources. Some will have you believe that's not the case.

Some would tell you this is actually about divesting Crown land, and that clearly is not the case. The working forest land base and the working landscape are absolutely critical to our long-term sus- tainable future. When I think about our province and when you look at a map of our province, what do you see? You see all these nice green areas on the map, which represent the approximately 13 percent of our province that has been dedicated to parks, and I'm proud of that. [1450] I'm okay with the fact that we have the largest amount of parkland of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world.

I think that's something that we all should be proud of in this House. I think that's something that was admirable, but I think we have to go a step further than that. Once you designate a large portion — and 13 percent is a big chunk — o f l a n d t o p a r k s , y o u a l s o need to think about where you're going to earn your income from. In order to have those parks, you have to have a sustaining income that will allow you to pro- vide the services to people that want to utilize those facilities. That's what the working landscape really does.

During the election of May 2001, I can tell you that this was one of the things I referred to on an ongoing basis as one of the main reasons why I believe people in the communities of Mackenzie, Bear Lake, McLeod Lake, Tsay Keh, Kwadacha, Prince George, Nukko Lake and Ness Lake and all the little communities in my riding that rely so heavily on the landscape should vote for the B.C. Liberal Party and, specifically, for me. I believe this one piece of legislation would offer the security that is necessary in order for our economy to move forward on an ongoing basis.

This legislation is about providing that certainty. It's about providing that security of tenure which is so critical for us to move forward as a society. There are some direct benefits we're seeing already as a result of this. I have six sawmills in my riding, I have five pulp mills, and I have some chemical plants. It's truly a heavily industrialized riding. A large amount of the timber supply in the province is located in my riding. The management of these companies that do business in my riding are very pleased to support this piece of l e g i s l a t i o n .

M a n y o f t h e m h a v e s p o k e n t o m e p e r s o n - a l l y . M a n y o f t h e m h a v e c o m e f o r w a r d a n d s a i d t h a t they really feel comfortable that we are going to have long-term certainty on the land base. Many of these companies have been in families for several genera- tions. Lakeland sawmill is a good example of one of the mills that has been passed down through the genera- tions.

When you see how land use went through the latter part of the eighties and certainly through the nineties, there was an ongoing concern about: are we actually going to have a place to practise forestry in this prov- ince? As you saw that incremental number start rolling up in terms of park designations, there was the con- cern: where are we going to practise forestry, and where are we going to get our fibre supply from?

They've got the sawmill sitting there that perhaps is a $100 million investment — a $100 million sawmill — with 250 or 300 employees working in the mill and many, many more working in the bush, harvesting timber, bringing it to the mill on an ongoing basis. There was very real concern by those individuals that they would not be able to pass it on to another genera- tion in their family.

This operation that had already gone through several generations would come to a standstill if we did not designate some land specifically targeted towards resource extraction and, in fact, effec- tive resource management and integrated resource management. To the naysayers that talk about this as being a sell- off of a Crown asset, I say no. I say either you haven't read this legislation, or you don't understand the legis- lation — one of the two — because in fact it is exactly the opposite.

You know, I wish the folks who take the time to criticize would also take the time to be edu- cated in the process, because clearly they have not made the effort that they need to make. [1455] Another one of the issues and concerns that was brought up to me through the discussions I had…. I presented on the working forest and the working land- scape in probably six or eight different speeches since last May or June, through the summer season. One of

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7487 the questions that was asked of me on an ongoing basis was: what does this do to our land use planning that's already gone through, the LRMPs? There was some concern from people at the tables that they'd put a tre- mendous amount of effort into the local land use plans. What would happen to those land use plans? The working forest landscape or the working landscape actually enhances those plans. It actually takes the plans to a whole new level, puts some teeth behind those plans, mandates the plans, builds on the plans.

Those are absolutely critical features of this piece of legislation. Once you actually sit down and have the discussion with the individuals that were at the land use tables, they are in fact very supportive of the direc- tion this minister and this government have taken around land use planning and around the extension — a very, very positive feature, I believe, in terms of the further development of the land use plans. It's an interesting thing, Mr. Speaker.

I have one land use plan that's quite extensively developed in Mackenzie, the Mackenzie LRMP, and then I have the Prince George LRMP, which perhaps is a little bit lower-level LRMP. Then, of course, we have the Cari- boo LRMP as well, which is a fairly high-level plan. Generally speaking, when you have a fairly effec- tive LRMP that has been put in place by a broad selec- tion of the community that's well represented, you have an effective plan. Most of those folks are quite well educated on the notion around a working land- scape and are very accepting of that notion.

It gives you certainty over the land base, and it allows you to know where you're going to be working — whether it's in the forest industry, in the mining industry, in the energy industry or around agriculture. And agriculture is a big component of this whole equation. So there are a lot of very positive comments that come from high- level LRMP tables around the working landscape.

Another key initiative — I can't overemphasize how important this is and really, in my mind, how cou- rageous this is for this minister — is to move from the model of statutory decision-making authority where the decision is vested in an individual within the bu- reaucracy — typically a regional manager or district manager — to a delegated decision-making authority where ultimately the elected official has the end decision-making authority or that decision is made by order-in-council — one of the two. How better to hold people accountable than to know you're electing them every four years?

One of the beauties of this government is that you know exactly when the next election will occur: May 17, 2005. The folks that are uncomfortable with a land use plan ulti- mately can hold this ministry — can hold me; can even hold you, Mr. Speaker — accountable on May 17, 2005, if they're not happy with the land use decision. You know what? That's the way it should be. We should be held accountable for that. We shouldn't di- vest that authority and that accountability to an indi- vidual that's hired and reportable to various govern- ments over the years.

I suspect it will be criticized at times; I suspect this minister will be criticized for hav- ing delegated decision-making authority. I'm sure there will be folks out who will not like that notion, but I say good on him. I believe that is a courageous move, and I think it's absolutely the right move for this minister and this government to take. Enough about delegated versus statutory decision- making authority, but I wanted to comment on that because I thought it was so important. As we sit in this House, I often think to myself about the importance of the types of decisions we make.

Oftentimes our focus tends to be on health care, education, social services, policing and all of the various ministries. Even the Minister of Transportation gets attention from time to time for all the fine work she does maintaining the highways in our province and putting all the new as- phalt down. In particular, the riding of the member for Peace River South, I notice, is getting excessive vol- umes of asphalt this particular season. I was quite shocked, in fact. I'd like it just to move a little further south. The next riding to the south would be better, perhaps, for next year. But I digress.

Oftentimes we talk about all the various other min- istries, and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Man- agement tends not to get that much attention. But ulti- mately, where does the money come from for the hos- pital located in the member for Vancouver-Burrard's riding? I've picked on him twice today already. [1500] L. Mayencourt: I'll get you back. P. Bell: I'm sure he will get me back. All of the health care facilities, all of the schools, all of the social service facilities — where does the money come from to drive those facilities forward?

Well, it's not generated in downtown Vancouver, as much as some people would like to think. Where it is generated is in the heartlands. That's where the money comes from, and it comes from the land base, by and large. Seventy-one percent of the provincial economy can be directly traced back to the land base from ridings like Cariboo North, my riding of Prince George–Mount Robson and Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the largest riding in the province.

All of those various ridings, even that of the member for Port Alberni, are key to our having the type of economy we want to have to provide the social services that are in such strong demand in the large urban centres. That income comes directly from the resource ex- traction industries like forestry, mining and energy. All of those industries benefit directly from the work of this particular piece of legislation, so I am very, very pleased to stand in support of this legislation. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we need to continue to push this legislation forward.

I noted, when I looked through the legislation last spring, that we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working landscape. Now, let's keep in mind that we have 95 million hectares in this province and that in an average year, I believe, we har- vest less than one-third of 1 percent of the entire work-

7488 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 ing forest. To put that in perspective, if you never planted another tree in this province, it would take 300 years at the current harvesting rates to log every tree that we have, and I'm pretty sure we'd see a little un- derbrush that would grow up in the meantime. The notion we are approaching here is one of hav- ing a large landscape, a large land base, that we can work with. When you have that larg er land base, you are not overextracting from any one segment of the particular land base.

You're creating an environment where you're effectively managing it. We have incredible technologies. In Prince George there are, I believe, around 180 technology companies, and many of those companies actually are directly re- lated to the type of work this minister is participating in here today. McGregor Model Forest Group is an excellent example. They have done some tremendous modelling around what the future looks like for our province based on several different scenarios. A lot of those rely very, very much on the notion around the working landscape and being able to effectively man- age our forests.

You know, when I think back to 30 years ago, I re- call something that was viewed as a devastating event. That was the spruce bark beetle infestation in the Bow- ron River valley. At that particular point in time there was a very large valley — I guess it's about 60 or 70 miles long and perhaps seven, eight or ten miles wide — that was infested with the spruce bark beetle. Every tree in the whole valley was killed. Through an effective approach to forest manage- ment, that valley is now a vibrant valley.

It is abso- lutely spectacular, with trees that are about 30 years old through intensive reforestation projects. The valley is full of wildlife today. There's a tremendous number of moose, bear, salmon, elk and deer in the valley. I took some time a few weeks ago to drive through the valley, and it really is spectacular. We need to be able to show people the results of an effective approach to forest management. When you have a working landscape, you're talking about that approach over a very long period of time.

I've already noted that we harvest less than one-third of 1 percent every year of the trees on our landscape, and to actu- ally take a look at the Bowron River valley now and see what has occurred in that particular area really demon- strates the approach that we have taken to effective forest management. [1505] Then there are all the other pieces of the equation. B.C. is one of the largest carbon sinks anywhere in the world, and there's much work that we can do around that. The working landscape actually allows us to de- velop that knowledge and approach it from a longer- term plan.

When you take carbon dioxide in the air, trees con- sume carbon dioxide. They release oxygen, and they retain carbon inside the tree. That's what we refer to when we use the term "carbon sequestration." That is a thing we need to develop a greater level of knowledge around. We need to have a better understanding. Espe- cially as we move into the world of Kyoto, we need to do an effective job of managing carbon sequestration. Certainly, the working landscape helps us in that.

I think one of the features some folks find to be of concern to them is the notion of no net loss to the work- ing landscape, but that really is what makes this legis- lation work. When you have a no-net-loss clause that ensures that you continue to manage that landscape where you have 45 million hectares on an ongoing ba- sis as you move forward, then people are a lot more thoughtful in the decisions they have to make about just how important that area is. My colleague from North Island has pointed out an area to me that the environmental movement has been targeting.

It was burned to the ground, I gather, about 60 years ago. Now it has become a heritage area, and it has a bunch of spindly little trees on it that actually are moving into some second-growth harvesting. When do you say: "Enough"? No-net-loss actually says: "Enough, but if you want to do a swap, we're willing to talk about it." It actually creates some incentive to bring the environmental movement back to a little more level position. In our province we have, as I've said, 12½ percent parkland, I guess. About 5 percent of the landscape out there is in private hands.

Then the non-forested area lands — which, of course, are the lakes and rivers and mountaintops — are another 34 percent, which leaves us 48 percent for working forest and then about 1 per- cent for other federal lands. You know, it should be noted that a lot of that 5 percent of private lands actu- ally is in the form of working forest, particularly here on Vancouver Island where we have the E&N lands which are quite substantial. The working forest is really about long-term man- agement.

It's about thinking how we're going to man- age this province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now — but more importantly, 100 years, 200 years or 300 years from now. One of the things I believe this government has not gotten any credit for up until now is our long-range planning. Here's a government that actually produces three-year budgets. We actually have the foresight to look ahead and plan out like you would a business. If you were going to make capital investments, how would you make those decisions? You want to have a long-term perspective and a long-term plan.

Some people suggest we don't have a plan. Well, I can tell you, there are others who suggest that some- times we plan ourselves to death, but it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to make sure we have an effective plan in place. This is an extension of those three-year service plans, those three-year budg- ets.

It actually talks about where my son — and per- haps if I am fortunate enough to have a grandson at some point and perhaps a great-grandson or grand- child and so on — will have a place to practise forestry, to practise mining, to ensure that we have the income we need in order to provide the services my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard is looking for. Three times today — sorry. We can have the hospitals and the

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7489 health care and the doctors — the highest-paid doctors and the highest-paid nurses anywhere in Canada. [1510] All those components of the equation are very, very important. They're critical parts of the working forest. It really is about a long-term plan or strategy in terms of how we're going to manage our forests. You know, the world is invited to come in. One of the great things about doing a long-term plan is that the world can ac- tually look at you and say: "What is your plan?

Where do you see yourself being as a province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now?" I can tell you that I believe the electorate, when they take the time to sit down and actually review our plan and re- view our strategy around the working landscape, will be very, very supportive. In fact, virtually all of the folks I have talked to in my end of the world — when I've taken the time to sit down and really thoroughly explain what the working landscape is all about — are very supportive of it.

I think the other thing that's really worth noting is that this minister has had about as much consultation as you could possibly ask for around the working for- est. I started talking about this particular notion, or the working landscape, two and a half years ago. I can tell you that I produce a weekly e-mail. In that weekly e-mail I have focused on the working landscape a t l e a s t f o u r o r f i v e t i m e s a n d r e d i r e c t e d m a n y o f m y constituents to look at the website to have an opportu- nity to provide comment.

Virtually without exception, what I heard as I did that was: "Why would I want to comment on this? It just seems to make so much sense." This is where we need to take our province: to have a designated land base where we know where we're going to work, where our sons and daughters are going to work in the future and where we know how we're going to be able to afford the type of infrastructure that we all desire and hear so much about on an ongoing basis. I had very, very positive receptions around this notion.

As we move forward, I can tell you that I am get- ting much more interest in investment in my particular area. I had a visit from a constituent who came in about three or four months ago. He was expressing some initial concern at the direction we were taking in de- veloping some of the forest policy. I asked him some questions: "If we could do something to help you in- vest…?" This was an individual who has built a saw- mill previously and has invested heavily in our prov- ince, and he's getting a little bit older now.

I said to him: "If we could do something that would help you, encourage you to reinvest in the province and reinvest in the heartlands, what would that be?" He outlined two or three different things he felt we needed to do as a provincial government in order to encourage him to invest and develop a new business in our area. You know what? We'd done every one of them. He just didn't know about it. One of the comments he made was about the work- ing forest. We chatted about that a bit. I showed him some of the documentation — information, the discus- sion paper that was available on the website.

Once he reviewed those things, he made the decision to start working on a strategy and a plan that will eventually, if he is successful, result in a facility that could be in the order of $30 million to $40 million and could easily employ 100 or more people in Prince George. Once he had the opportunity to actually review the things that we've done and understood what our strategies were, he was very pleased to put his money back where his mouth was and to start thinking about developing a further business. That is just one of two stories I would like to share with you, because there's another one.

This example is actually growing today. There was a business started in Prince George shortly after this government was elected on the basis of purchasing larger volumes of private fibre. They were concerned that they would not have a secure source of supply, so they were very eager for us to have a designated landscape where they knew they were going to be able to work in the long-term scheme of things. This business located itself quite strategically in the BCR industrial site in Prince George and was focusing principally, as I said, on purchasing volume.

Over the last two years, though, an interesting thing has oc- curred. They started out with about six or seven em- ployees in this particular operation — not a large com- pany, a relatively small one. Within a few months they were up around 15 or 20 employees. The business had started to grow. They actually diversified their business, and one of the things — interestingly, we talk about value-added products — they started creating was wood that looked old. They started creating a product that could be used o n m o v i e s e t s t h a t n e e d e d t o h a v e t h a t k i n d o f o l d , tarnished look.

I wouldn't want to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, as old or tarnished, certainly. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. [1515] P. Bell: I can't think of anyone else in the room, though, so I'll point at you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of old and tarnished, they created this spe- cific product, and they've been very successful at mar- keting this product. They now have in this particular mill 125 employees creating old and tarnished products — 125 employees in this mill — and it was done specifi- cally because they knew they had access to fibre.

In conclusion, I can tell you I am very enthusiastic about this particular legislation. I think this minister has done a fine job of crafting it, of putting it together. I think he has accepted all the input that's necessary. Certainly, it has been out in the public for long enough, and I think he's very courageous in moving from statu- tory decision-making authority to delegated decision- making authority. This does fulfil another one of our new-era commitments. Let's not forget that. This is about actually developing a future for B.C.

7490 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 V. Anderson: I a s k p e r m i s s i o n t o m a k e a n i n t r o - duction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members V. Anderson: We have in the gallery today a group of exciting young citizens of Canada who are here to understand what's going on at the Legislature. They've just come from the museum. They had the opportunity to see the fossils in the museum, and they've now come to see the live fossils here in the Legislature. We want to welcome them and wish the students of John Henderson a good time today.

We're glad the sunshine came out in Victoria for them, and we con- gratulate them for their energy and enthusiasm in com- ing to visit the Legislature, the principal Legislature of the province of British Columbia. The best to all of you. Please help me to welcome them. Debate Continued T. Christensen: I was listening carefully to the member for Prince George North. I'm not sure he has left much to add, but I will certainly take the opportu- nity nevertheless. I, too, am a strong supporter of Bill 46, and I believe it's something long overdue here in the province.

Really, Bill 46 is a result of reflection on years of public discussion and consultation throughout this entire province about land use. More importantly, Bill 46 is the means to move from that important discussion and consultation to action, and it is action in this province that has been sorely lacking for some time. It's hard to think of anything that is more important to the social and economic future of communities all around this province than effective land use policies and decisions.

In this province, as all members of this House will know, we have a history of reliance on the bounty that the land provides, but we also have a his- tory of appreciation of the unsurpassed natural envi- ronment we have in our province. What Bill 46 will do is enable government to proceed with effective land use decision-making to provide opportunity and cer- tainty to communities around the province for this generation and, certainly, for generations to come. Bill 46 is really one part of the challenge we face in bringing certainty to the land base throughout the province.

We still have issues around land claims and treaty negotiations. Those are critically important is- sues, and it's important that we move forward on re- solving those issues in our quest to bring certainty to the land base. We've had the LRMP process over the last number of years. That has made progress in bring- ing some decisions and some certainty around where we need to go with our land base, and Bill 46 is the means by which we can now follow up on that initial discussion and consultation process.

We need and are developing progressive natural resource policies based on principles of sustainability for our environment and for the future of our commu- nities right throughout the province. Given the impor- tance of land use issues, they're often at the forefront of public debate in this province. Too often when we talk about land use, we talk about it in terms of competing interests. It's this industry against that industry. It's environmental protection against natural resource ex- traction.

We don't need to talk about it in single terms. [1520] I think the root of that conflict is our propensity to think of land use in exclusive terms. In very many cases, as any of us knows from just looking at our own back yards and our own communities — certainly, this is true in my part of the province — the use of an area of land for one purpose need not be exclusive. The real- ity is that one use need not preclude other uses. This legislation recognizes that. It recognizes that land uses can co-exist, and it also recognizes they can change over time.

Bill 46 is part of the government's new-era com- mitment to establish a working forest. As the member for Prince George North pointed out, and it's worth pointing out again, it is yet another new-era commit- ment made and new-era commitment kept. I know some probably get tired of us reminding British Co- lumbians that, yes, we've now met one more promise, but the reality is that it's been a long time since British Columbians have had a government that could actually stand up and say: "Guess what.

We gave you a plat- form, and yet again we can tick off one more accom- plishment in terms of keeping those promises met dur- ing a campaign." It's a matter of accountability that we should be reminding British Columbians of and, quite frankly, that all British Columbians should require of all their governments. I do want to comment very briefly on the working forest initiative. The member from Prince George did c o m m e n t o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h a t a t s o m e l e n g t h .

I want to reiterate the comment he made, because I know there seems to be an unfortunate amount of mis- understanding around what the working forest initia- tive means. It is not a sell-off of forest resources in the province, but rather it is an important attempt and an important step in bringing some certainty to the work- ing forest land base in the province in recognition of the critically important role that forestry has provided in this province — both historically but certainly that this government believes it will continue to play as we move forward.

It's a fact that sustainable management of our for- ests has been the lifeblood of communities and families throughout this province, and this government is committed to strengthening those forestry opportuni- ties for this generation but equally importantly, as the member for Prince George North noted, for future gen- erations.

The working forest is then part and parcel of the government's more comprehensive forestry revi- talization plan which will see forestry again become the economic generator it should be and that it has the potential to be in this province so all of us throughout this province, regardless of the community we live in,

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7491 benefit directly either from the jobs and the opportuni- ties provided in the forests in our back yard or from the many public services that forestry or forest revenues allow all of us to enjoy here in British Columbia. Beyond the working forest, Bill 46 also provides opportunity to bring certainty to a number of other endeavours in the province: mining, tourism, recrea- tion, ranching, agriculture, conservation opportunities and other uses. All of these are important uses of land in our province that British Columbians value.

They want to ensure those opportunities exist in the future, but they want to ensure there's some certainty around where those opportunities best exist and how we bring some certainty in terms of avoiding conflict around those various opportunities.

In reviewing Bill 46, the only objection I can really see anybody having to it is that they might stand up and say: "Well, you didn't give the whole province to my group for my activity." The reality is that what Bill 46 does is provide a mechanism by which we can balance those competing interests around the province and move forward for the benefit of all British Columbians. [1525] Bill 46 allows for the designation of areas of Crown land for one or more purposes.

That "or more" is the critical part of that provision of the legislation, because it emphasizes that we're not talking, in most cases, about exclusive use of any one part of the province or any part of Crown land in the province. We're talking about finding a means where uses can co-exist as that is appropriate, but also, in some circumstances, you may have a piece of land or a one-use that for very good reasons can't co-exist with some others.

Government needs to stand up and make those tough decisions when those issues arise so that people living in the province and people looking to invest in the province can say: "Yes, we know what the playing field is here in British Columbia." Bill 46 allows for objectives to be set for the man- agement of that designated land and for government to require approvals, licences and other authorities where those are necessary for the effective management of that designated land. All of those are the mechanics of Bill 46 that work together to ensure we have effective land use in this province.

If people reflect on the last 28 months or so, they'll see that this government has done more to bring some certainty to the land base in this province than has ever been done by previous governments in this province to date. We're making progress, certainly in terms of land claims issues, on a number of agreements-in-principle which are critical to bringing some of the underlying certainty that is necessary.

We've developed the two-zone policy in mining, which provides an attractive mechanism whereby min- ing is again looking at British Columbia and saying, "Yes, we can see the government of British Columbia thinks that we're an important industry, that we can provide opportunity for British Columbians, and yes, we are again going to look at exploring and making investment in the province." We have the working forest initiative that I mentioned earlier. What Bill 46 does is allow that drive towards cer- tainty to continue.

Bill 46 provides the necessary frame- work to make the tough decisions ahead, but the reality is that there still is much work to be done with respect to specific designations around the province. I certainly don't think the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is going to be able to have too much rest too soon. We do want to keep him working hard. Finally in this province, after a long, long time of waiting, we now have a government that's committed to doing that work — to making the tough, challenging and necessary decisions that arise and to moving the province forward.

It's long overdue, and I'm glad and very proud to stand and support Bill 46 to further us down that path. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] J. MacPhail: As we've seen with so much of the so- called reform of how we manage and regulate the use of public lands, this bill continues the government penchant for putting the proverbial horse before the cart. I was interested to listen to the comments from the previous speaker and find exactly what in the legislation he relies upon for his enthusiasm and his optimism.

Clearly, he's got information that the rest of the public doesn't have and certainly that this Legislature doesn't have. This bill is the cart before the horse. So he's got some secrets there that no one else knows about. The minister needs this bill to implement the Premier's promise for a working forest law. We don't actually have the working forest law yet, but this will somehow deliver something for who-knows-what. I guess the reason why we're doing this legislation now is because the minister's plans for the working forest are not going well, and that means things aren't going well for the Premier either.

The minister put his working forest plan out for public consultation, and here's what he got back: 97 percent of those who par- ticipated in his consultation process said: "Don't do it." That's the same thing they told the previous govern- ment, and that government listened. Let me quote from the Working Forest in British Co- lumbia consultation report prepared for this govern- ment by Daryl Brown Associates for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management just last August.

Before I do that, let me remind the minister and this House that while much of the criticism of his working forest initiative is from environmentalists, they are not alone in being concerned that the working forest is not only bad for the environment but also bad for business. I actually heard the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management dismiss his whole consultation process as being vested interests from the environmental groups. He conducts a consultation, and then he dismisses it. Isn't that interesting?

Unfortunately, he dismissed it too soon, because business groups are opposed to this. [1530] Perhaps the minister will be aware of this statement from his own consultation report: "Other business in-

7492 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 terests, including ranching and agriculture, tourism, mining, and oil and gas generally support the idea of designating a land base for securing commercial re- source activity but fear that the WF as proposed will detract from certainty for their sectors." Here's how the report summarized the most com- mon perceptions people have of the working forest initiative, and I quote from the government's own re- port: "Many individuals and organizations that provided input are concerned that the working forest initiative will: represent the transference of increased property rights to forest companies, create a government liability to pay compensation to companies if Crown land is ever removed from the WF to accommodate other requirements; prevent or constrain government's future flexibility to dedicate Crown land for parks and protected areas, conservation purposes, or other purposes that might be incompatible with timber management; result in a reduction in the amount of existing park land as part of a 'no-net-loss' arrangement in situations where government decides to remove land from the working forest designation." I continue to read from the government's own consultation report.

People are concerned that the working forest initiative will: "…involve a relaxation of forest stewardship standards and forest licensee responsibilities for protecting non-timber resource values — with the result that the other values like drinking water, biodiversity, fish, wildlife, recreation, etc., will be damaged; lock B.C. communities and forest workers into primary resource/commodity forest product dependency and a continued downward trend of job loss and socioeconomic instability; establish a hierarchy of resource sector importance with the forest sector on top, to the detriment of other sectors such as tourism, agriculture, mining, or oil and gas." The government's own consultation report goes on to say that the working forest initiative will open the door for increased sales or privatization of the public forest land.

It will override or compromise existing and future land and resource management plans or other locally developed land and resource management plans. It will mean that allowable annual cut levels will automatically be increased to unsustainable levels in the working forest designation.

It will impact nega- tively on existing or future tenure rights that are granted in the working forest to other sectors, and it will result in Crown land decisions that lack transpar- ency and accountability because as a result of proposed changes to the Land Act, they will be made through order-in-council or ministerial order rather than by the full Legislature. That's what the government's own consultation report that they commissioned said — not exactly a ringing endorsement for proceeding. Nonetheless, this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management figures he has the go-ahead to proceed.

Contrary to whatever we heard from the Premier during the election, land use decisions are not going to be done in open cabinet, so I was taken aback that the member from Vernon suggested a new-era promise had been met. His little checkmark is going to have to be unchecked, because these land use decisions are not g o i n g t o b e d o n e i n o p e n c a b i n e t — even though, frankly, we know what a farce and waste of taxpayers' money that partisan infomercial has become — but are going to be done by regulation behind closed doors. This bill allows for the minister alone…. Interjection. J.

MacPhail: I'm not sure Vancouver-Burrard would appreciate your comments. This bill allows for the minister alone or for cabinet to designate land uses through its regulatory power, so I w o u l d b e h a p p y t o k n o w w h a t t h e m e m b e r f r o m Vernon was talking about when he said it was going to be done in a way that was promised in the new-era document. [1535] There are going to be regulations to determine con- servation and management of our natural resources — not legislation, not debate, but regulations. There are going to be regulations by cabinet alone to resolve land use conflicts.

There are going to be regulations to des- ignate land for specified economic development oppor- tunities. There are going to be regulations to establish objectives for Crown resources and Crown land. What exactly did the member from Vernon mean when he said that the new-era promise of openness had been met? So far everything's going to be done behind closed doors. Rather than actually having delivered on a new-era promise, the Premier faces a huge credibility gap. British Columbians don't trust him, and they don't think he's acting in their best interests.

This bill, the Land Amendment Act, 2003, is exactly emblematic of why British Columbians feel that way. The authority and control over our public resources are being, it would seem, reserved for the private profit of private corporations and that alone. The public trust that is our natural resources is being redefined by this government to be turned into raw material for private profit. That control is being passed over to those forest companies without public input or consultation — or, more to the point, input and consultation that is actually listened to. The government did do a consultation.

It's just that right after it was delivered, the minister dis- missed it completely. If he had accepted the public con- sultation, this legislation would not be before us today. Decisions that rightfully belong as the nexus of public discussion and decision-making are moving to behind closed doors. That is not how British Columbi- ans want their natural heritage managed. Why not do the right thing and withdraw this bill until such time as the minister, whatever minister — the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Management or the Minister of For- ests — is ready to actually s how us what his worki ng forest law is?

We don't know. It's not before the Legis- lature. I find it hilarious that these government mem- bers are standing up and talking about working forests as if anybody knows. They've become so arrogant in their majority that they think what they do behind

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7493 closed doors in caucus is what the whole world agrees with and what the whole world knows about. It's unbe- lievable that any of these government caucus members can stand here and tell us that the working forest is good, because we don't know. Oops, the government forgot to put that bill before the Legislature. Here we are today with a piece of legislation, and we have no idea how it relates to the working forest law because it isn't anywhere to be found by the public.

It certainly isn't in this Legislature, and it certainly isn't in front of the people of British Columbia. Why don't we wait until we actually see what the working forest legislation is, let the minister stand before us and be- fore the public and prove the worth of that plan, before we pass this legislation? Then and only then should he be bringing forward legislation to implement the plan. That's all this piece of legislation is about: implement- ing a secret plan, and nobody except, I guess, the gov- ernment members has any idea of its content. B.

Suffredine: I feel much more comfortable now rising to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition than I did this morning. I don't have, in any way, the same kinds of concerns that she expressed here today. They were more fears that she doesn't know how to support and that are, in fact, consistent with the kinds of concerns I've heard from people who have expressed concerns about this legislation to me. [1540] I've received a number of inquiries over the past few weeks by people that are concerned. I'm only left with one concern at the end of those weeks — and hav- ing to look into it for a number of people.

That concern is really that we call it the working forest, not the work- ing land base. That seems to be the cause of the misun- derstanding and the fears. The Leader of the Opposi- tion suggested there were a number of fears that it would result in the sale of Crown lands, that it would result in the reduction of parkland, that it would create a downward trend of job loss — interesting comments from that party. There would be a hierarchy of indus- try importance, and the annual allowable cut would be increased, naturally. There would be a lack of transpar- ency.

All those things — just fears, just unfounded fears — were put forward. I 'v e had t o l o o k at i t , and I 'v e c o m e t o t he c o nc l u - sion that it's none of the above. However, I do think the reference to it as the working land base might help to clarify for the public what it's all about. This legislation is not just about forests and forestry. Ultimately, it's about certainty. It will provide certainty for forestry, of course, but it will also create certainty for rec- reational users, tourism operators, miners, ranchers and those in the oil and gas industry.

This legislation allows us to plan our use of the land base in the most effective way so that we can get the most benefit for all British Columbi- ans, not just for one user or another. Environmental groups have come out opposing this legislation. They speak as though it will allow us to log the entire province, which of course could not be fur- ther from the truth.

I know these environmental groups actually care about our forests and want what's best for the forest, but we need to find a balance between what percentage of land should be parks and protected areas and what lands we should be using for our major re- source industries and our recreation. As I said earlier, I've had a number of inquiries from people who've obtained misinformation. In fact, I received at one point a flyer distributed by an organi- zation called workingforest.org, which seemed to con- tain information that was deliberately false.

I took that information, reviewed it and checked it against the webpage for Sustainable Resource Management and found that many of the things that were circulated in this flyer were simply as mi sl eading as they could be. They were the opposite of what was accurate. I've had inquiries from people by e-mail.

Each time I get a written inquiry that suggests things like the Leader of the Opposition puts forward — and it's fairly common for them to say they fear it will result in the sale of Crown lands, Crown forests — I've referred them to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Manage- ment's webpage, asked them to look it up, read it care- fully and come back to me with specific concerns. Al- most unanimously, no one has concerns after that. The only concern they express is the fear about the future, the fear that some day down the road someone might change this.

To me that expresses more fear that the former government might come back, than that the present government will change its plan to create cer- tainty in the forests. Concern about what this bill does is not there — just what someone might do sometime in the future. The minister here has done a lot of good work cre- ating the balance that we need by consulting with communities and by doing some of the much-needed long-term land use planning.

That's something that's been lacking up until now. [1545] This legislation will help us create that balance, and it will help us create certainty not only for industry but also for those environmental groups who want to use the land for things that create jobs, like the tourism and back-country recreation industries. In saying that, I can give a pretty specific example of one of the things that's often overlooked by people that — well, let's say — live in the city.

When you're from the centre of Vancouver and you want back-country recreation — doing some activity like mountain biking — you don't think about what you're going to ride on when you go mountain biking. You think you'll go up there, and you'll use a trail. But what's going to create the trail? How is it that you're going to get access to the back country if the trail is never maintained? The industries like forestry and mining, historically, have created that access.

Kokanee Glacier Park is probably one of the best examples of a place that's accessible now because it was a highly mineralized zone and created mines in the early years, around the 1890s and 1900s. Roads that were built into what is now the Kokanee Glacier Park still exist be- cause the miners in the old days knew how to build t he m we l l e no u g h. T he y d i d n 't want t o hav e t o ru n a

7494 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003 grader up them every week, so they built them with a little bit of a slope to the outside so the water would run off. They've stood the test of time. Some of them are almost a century old, and the only thing that hap- pens to them is that a few trees and things grow up in them if they're not regularly travelled. Recreational users should also understand that be- ing able to use the same area as a mining company might actually be complementary to their needs. After all, the mining company only operates for a limited portion of the year.

It opens up the road, grades it, keeps it in good shape and makes it so that they can go in and do all the activities they want to do. A lot of it is mountain-climbing and things like that. To get to the tallest peak, you often don't want to start from the very bottom of the valley — at least not on foot. Those who oppose this legislation are treading on pretty dangerous ground. Uncertainty about the planned use of our land is a silent but deadly job-killer. The previous government used uncertainty as a tool to kill jobs in my region and throughout the rest of the province.

I know many of us, particularly a number of friends I have who are prospectors, cringe when they are reminded of Windy Craggy. A great deal of money was spent investing in that northern mining project before a land use designation in the middle of the process was simply changed, like the flip of a switch, in a cabinet meeting. The Leader of the Opposition com- plains about secrecy, but certainly that's how they did it. As a result, that project was abandoned. That's bil- lions of dollars of revenue for British Columbians.

It's that uncertainty about what government will do w i t h o u r l a n d b a s e t h a t s c a r e d o f f m i n i n g i n v e s t o r s throughout the 1990s. It's that uncertainty, created by the former government, that — no wonder — makes people nervous. It will take a little time before they have confidence that our cabinet — w h i c h , j u s t a s a matter of interest, has made all of the land use plan- ning decisions in open cabinet to this point…. That's been the standard practice.

The Leader of the Opposi- tion expresses concerns that it will be secret, but in fact the practice has been the exact opposite. There is no question that there would be more min- ing investment and more mining jobs in my riding had the previous government taken responsibility for the land base and developed a plan that allowed all com- patible uses full access. They failed to do that, and the result has been uncertainty and conflict. We won't let that happen. People in my region want the opportunities, and they want to be able to use the land base to create jobs.

Whether it's in forests, min- ing, recreation, ranching or tourism, creating certainty will give investors confidence to develop projects in the Kootenays and around the province, which will create jobs and revenues that support families and help sus- tain and support the great health care system and edu- cation we all enjoy. L. Mayencourt: It's a great pleasure to stand here and speak to Bill 46. My riding has been mentioned quite a few times in the Legislature today. Some might wonder: what would the member for Vancouver-Burrard have to say about the working for- ests? It's interesting to me, because….

You know, the member for Prince George North spoke about how the resource community on which this province is built, on which our education system and our health care sys- tem are built, is all up there in the heartlands, but I would venture to guess that I probably have more people working in the mining industry in my riding than any other riding in British Columbia. [1550] There are a lot of people who work in the mining sector in my community. It's the home of the Mining Association of British Columbia. It's the home of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines.

It's the home of thousands of men and women who make their living out of the mining sector. You know, it's true of the for- est sector as well. Although I know there are probably some more individuals working in other ridings in the forestry sector, I've got a lot of people that depend upon the forest sector for their living in my riding. They care about it; they're cautious about how they work in that industry. We got a whole bunch of people in tourism — Tourism Vancouver, Tourism British Columbia, Coun- cil of Tourism Associations.

All of those folks rely on this huge province of ours to be able to take people out for tours, to show them on eco-tours what our province is made of. I get it that maybe a lot of those resources are up in the north or in the heartlands of British Co- lumbia, but they touch every British Columbian. In my riding, it's because there are a lot of them who work there, but it's also because of the kids that go to school in my riding and the seniors who l

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1023pm 07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1023pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	57a357855b0dbda4520d6cf31cbf1c6e1834c14b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).