2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

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 25 B )

Surrey business excellence awards

D. Hayer

NEPTUNE ocean research project

S. Orr

Small business in B.C.

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

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

Payment of wages to forest fire fighters

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

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

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)

[ Page 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 travelled to British Columbia to discover the

many opportunities our beautiful province presents. Would the House please make

them feel welcome this afternoon.

[1405]

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

northern 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.

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 Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 78, intituled Accountants (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

consultations 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 Honour 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 appointed by royal commission rather than by

order-in-council. We have prepared enabling legislation that will retroactively

appoint the current police complaint commissioner, validate decisions made while

he was acting under his flawed appointment, and authorize his compensation and

benefits. The office of the legislative counsel, the Ministry of Attorney

General and the office of the Speaker are working on a protocol respecting ap-

[ Page 7480 ]

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

Hon. K.

Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Pacific 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 Columbians 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 comprise the PNE board as of January 1, 2004. We are doing this

because we feel that the municipal level of government 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 land grant

of Hastings Park to the city of Vancouver, 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 25b)

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 describe 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 business 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 employees that make them so successful. First, the student

entrepreneur of the year is a Surrey-Tynehead constituent 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 employees 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 Centre.

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 Advanced

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 beneath 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 NEPTUNE will flow

instantly via the Internet to shore stations 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

[ Page 7481 ]

propelled men to outer space. Now we are finally going 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 businesses with fewer than 50 employees. In fact, most are operators of

small businesses of fewer than five employees. The numbers paint a clear

picture. Small business accounts for almost 90 percent of all businesses in the

province, and 83 percent, or about 250,000 businesses, fall within that category

of five employees or less.

The

momentum has been building since our government 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 Scotiabank

report released just this month, B.C. is leading the nation in small enterprise

employment.

I have been

part of that movement. In rural 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 local 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

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 income 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 continuing that very productive relationship.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: Not only did the member for Vancouver-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.

Actually, 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 thousands of income recipients being kicked off by this government — do

they make him a poverty pimp, according 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 providing…. 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 opportunity, the

very best social program, that can exist 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 histrionics,

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.

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

[ Page 7482 ]

talking about in terms of how many people were going to be kicked off income

assistance.

It is clear

this government does not want to make 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 protected by

this government. This government will take 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 reiterate what the minister said earlier this

week. He has instructed his staff to prepare a report for him regarding 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 reflect a direction and a focus towards stability

and ensuring we support the most vulnerable in this province in ways that they

need to be supported.

PAYMENT OF WAGES TOFOREST 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 responsible for provincial revenues: when can these firefighters 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.

MacPhail: So pay them. It's outrageous.

Hon. G.

Collins: No, Mr. Speaker, what's outrageous 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 something 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

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-

[ Page 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.

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 inexpensive, 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.

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

Institutes of Health Research.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR SMALL BUSINESS

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of State for Deregulation. This week is national

Small Business Week, which recognizes the immense contribution of small and

medium businesses to our Canadian economy. In British Columbia, small businesses

with fewer than five employees make up the majority of all businesses, 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 Premier 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 Capital Act, which will help create more pools of investment that will

be invested in the heartlands of British Columbia; when you consider the changes

the Securities 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

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

unsuccessful parties in the superior courts in this province. 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 judiciary and members of the bar.

They're posing the question 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 Columbia 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 settlement. Those are good principles.

The review

is underway. I believe that the committee 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

Lekstrom: Today my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. B.C.'s

booming oil and gas industry continues to be driven by the Peace River region,

providing opportunities that could translate into thousands of well-paying jobs

for residents of British Columbia.

However, a

recent study by the North Peace economic development commission suggests that

despite the tremendous growth in this sector, many of the opportunities 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

[ Page 7484 ]

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

development commission is a report that looks backwards. It was actually

commissioned by the last government. The NDP, in the dying days of their

election, commissioned this report because they had ignored the northeast. 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 office — 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 encourage year-round drilling so that people could

actually work year-round and live in the northeast. That's actually 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 working 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 August 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 payment 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 directly to fire centres. They've left their

positions elsewhere 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

specifically 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 processing

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 public 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 immediately, and they'll be put on a priority basis.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

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

[ Page 7485 ]

will provide more clarity respecting the rules that apply 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 designations on specific areas of

Crown land. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will also be able to set

management objectives for the resources located in that designated 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 development 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 legislation 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 perpetuity 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

addressed. We have listened to the substance of the public input on the working

forest, and I'm confident that all of the key concerns can be put to rest as we

move forward.

In addition

to the working forest, the amendments to the Land Act will enable streamlined

implementation 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 designating 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 legislated 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, conservation, timber

availability, etc. Objectives established 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 Management to establish objectives for the purposes of the Forest and

Range Practices Act. The legislation essentially 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

objectives 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 enable the public to ensure that the objectives reflect their

aspirations for the management of public forest resources. We will also continue

to meet our commitments to consult with first nations and, where appropriate, 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 respecting 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 Columbia.

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 be just a shadow of what it is

today. The wonderful, tall concrete buildings that are in the riding of my

colleague 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.

[ Page 7486 ]

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

comment on what this legislation is really about.

This

legislation is about doing things like improving 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 planning, I think it will see we are truly the

most environmentally 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 sustainable 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 — of land to parks, you also 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 provide 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 legislation.

Many of them have spoken to me personally. Many of them have come forward and

said that 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 generations. Lakeland sawmill is a good example of one of the mills that

has been passed down through the generations.

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 province? As you saw that

incremental number start rolling up in terms of park designations, there was the

concern: 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

generation 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, effective

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

legislation — 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 educated 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 landscape in probably

six or eight different speeches since last May or June, through the summer

season. One of

[ Page 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 tremendous 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 direction 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 Cariboo LRMP as well, which is a fairly high-level plan.

Generally

speaking, when you have a fairly effective LRMP that has been put in place by a

broad selection 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

landscape 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 courageous 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 bureaucracy — 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 ultimately 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 divest that authority and that accountability to an individual that's

hired and reportable to various governments over the years. I suspect it will be

criticized at times; I suspect this minister will be criticized for having

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 asphalt down. In particular,

the riding of the member for Peace River South, I notice, is getting excessive

volumes 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 ministries, and the Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management tends not to get that much attention. But ultimately, where

does the money come from for the hospital located in the member for Vancouver-Burrard's

riding? I've picked on him twice today already.

[1500]

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 extraction 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 harvest less than one-third of 1 percent of the entire work-

[ Page 7488 ]

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 underbrush that

would grow up in the meantime.

The notion

we are approaching here is one of having a large landscape, a large land base,

that we can work with. When you have that larger 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 related

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 manage our forests.

You know,

when I think back to 30 years ago, I recall something that was viewed as a

devastating event. That was the spruce bark beetle infestation in the Bowron

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 management, that valley is now a vibrant valley. It

is absolutely 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 actually take a look at the Bowron River valley now and see what has occurred

in that particular area really demonstrates 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 develop that knowledge and approach

it from a longer-term plan.

When you

take carbon dioxide in the air, trees consume 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. Especially 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 working landscape, but that really is what makes this legislation

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 basis 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.

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

percent for other federal lands. You know, it should be noted that a lot of that

5 percent of private lands actually 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 management. It's about thinking how we're going

to manage 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 sometimes 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 budgets. It

actually talks about where my son — and perhaps if I am fortunate enough to

have a grandson at some point and perhaps a great-grandson or grandchild 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

[ Page 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

actually 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 review 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 forest. 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 at least four or five times and redirected many of my

constituents to look at the website to have an opportunity 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 getting 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 developing some of the forest policy. I asked him some questions:

"If we could do something to help you invest…?" This was an

individual who has built a sawmill previously and has invested heavily in our

province, 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 working forest. We chatted about that a bit. I

showed him some of the documentation — information, the discussion 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 occurred. They started out with

about six or seven employees in this particular operation — not a large

company, 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 on movie sets that

needed to have that kind of old, 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 specific product, and they've been very

successful at marketing 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 specifically because they knew they had access to fibre.

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 statutory 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.

[ Page 7490 ]

Anderson: I ask permission to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

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 congratulate them for

their energy and enthusiasm in coming 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

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

opportunity 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

history of appreciation of the unsurpassed natural environment 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 certainty 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 issues, and it's important that we

move forward on resolving 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 bringing 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 communities right

throughout the province. Given the importance 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

extraction. 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

reality 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 commitment 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 commitment made and new-era commitment kept. I

know some probably get tired of us reminding British Columbians 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 platform, and yet again we can tick off one more

accomplishment in terms of keeping those promises met during 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 comment on the importance of that at some length. I want to reiterate

the comment he made, because I know there seems to be an unfortunate amount of

misunderstanding around what the working forest initiative 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 working 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 forests has been the lifeblood of communities

and families throughout this province, and this government is committed to

strengthening those forestry opportunities for this generation but equally

importantly, as the member for Prince George North noted, for future

generations. The working forest is then part and parcel of the government's more

comprehensive forestry revitalization 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,

[ Page 7491 ]

benefit directly either from the jobs and the opportunities 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, recreation, 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.

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 management 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 mining 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 certainty to continue. Bill 46 provides the necessary

framework 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.]

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 participated

in his consultation process said: "Don't do it." That's the same thing

they told the previous government, and that government listened.

Let me

quote from the Working Forest in British Columbia consultation report

prepared for this government 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

[ Page 7492 ]

terests, including ranching and agriculture, tourism, mining, and oil and gas

generally support the idea of designating a land base for securing commercial

resource activity but fear that the WF as proposed will detract from certainty

for their sectors."

Here's how

the report summarized the most common perceptions people have of the working

forest initiative, and I quote from the government's own report:

"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 negatively 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 transparency 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 going to be

done in open cabinet — 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.

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 would be happy to know what the member from 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 conservation 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 designate land for specified economic development

opportunities. 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 dismissed it completely. If he had accepted the public

consultation, 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 Columbians 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

Sustainable Resource Management or the Minister of Forests — is ready to

actually show us what his working forest law is? We don't know. It's not before

the Legislature. I find it hilarious that these government members 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

[ Page 7493 ]

closed doors in caucus is what the whole world agrees with and what the whole

world knows about. It's unbelievable 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 before 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: implementing a secret plan, and

nobody except, I guess, the government members has any idea of its content.

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

having to look into it for a number of people. That concern is really that we

call it the working forest, not the working land base. That seems to be the

cause of the misunderstanding and the fears. The Leader of the Opposition

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 industry importance, and the annual allowable cut would be

increased, naturally. There would be a lack of transparency. All those things

— just fears, just unfounded fears — were put forward.

I've had to

look at it, and I've come to the conclusion 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 recreational 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 Columbians, 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 further 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 resource 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

organization called workingforest.org, which seemed to contain 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 misleading 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

Management's webpage, asked them to look it up, read it carefully and come back

to me with specific concerns. Almost 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 certainty 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 creating 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 because the miners in the old days knew how to build them well enough.

They didn't want to have to run a

[ Page 7494 ]

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 happens 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 being 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 complains about secrecy, but certainly that's how they did it. As a

result, that project was abandoned. That's billions of dollars of revenue for

British Columbians.

It's that

uncertainty about what government will do with our land base that scared off

mining investors 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 — which, just as a

matter of interest, has made all of the land use planning decisions in open

cabinet to this point…. That's been the standard practice. The Leader of the

Opposition 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 mining 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 compatible 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, mining,

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 sustain and support

the great health care system and education we all enjoy.

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 forests? 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 system 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 forest 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, Council 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 Columbia, 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 live in my community and go up to the hospital, up to

St. Paul's.

We sit in

this chamber. It's a beautiful, beautiful chamber. What do we see? These

beautiful desks made out of wood. On the walls we have the marble. We have the

beautiful chair that you sit in, Mr. Speaker. I mean, we're looking at a

wonderful example of some of the things that British Columbia has to offer.

I am not

ashamed that our province has been built on the resource sector. I think it's

wonderful; I think it's important. We have a great big province that has much to

offer all of us. We've heard an awful lot in this chamber about what the working

forest initiative will do. It's true that the working forest initiative is going

to provide certainty, and it will help to revitalize communities around British

Columbia. Now, that's great news — great news for me and great news for the

people in my riding who work in these sectors and great news for British

Columbians all over — but I also think it's important to talk about what the

working forest is not.

The working

forest is not about just providing certainty for the forest industry. The name

"working forest" — I think a lot of people look at that and go:

"Oh, that's trees." Well, it's actually a land base. It's a base of

land that we have in this province that belongs to the people of British

Columbia, which is there to be used by British Columbians to create jobs, to

create communities, to create schools and hospitals. It is not just

[ Page 7495 ]

about the forest sector; it is about everything that makes British Columbia

what it is. It is also about providing certainty for people who want to come to

this province and invest in a business or start an exploration task on a mine,

for tourism operators, visitors and all of the economic benefits that spin off

from those activities.

The working

forest is not about privatization. I look at this bill, Bill 46. It's just five

pages. It's eight different sections. It's a very small bill, but it's attached

to this bill, the Land Act. It's attached to the Land Act, which has 110

different sections. It adds these eight to it to become 118, so it's a large

act, and it should be. But

section 23 of this act is very clear. It says that it

is illegal to sell Crown land for timber production purposes. Therefore, it

still remains in the hands of British Columbians, where it will always be.

We aren't

giving away 45 million hectares of land to private corporate interests. We're

not. We're giving them access to it. We're creating land use certainty that will

bring investor confidence back to the communities throughout the province. We

are not undermining the tourism businesses and recreational opportunities in

this province. In fact, the working forest provisions include tourism

activities.

[1555]

The working

forest is not an assault on our parks. New parks and protected areas will be

possible where government or this Legislature decides it is in the public

interest. This is the right place for those decisions to be made — in public,

where they can be debated with the Leader of the Opposition, with the members of

this government, with the cabinet. This is the right place for those decisions

to come about.

Conservation

targets are part of the working forest. The working forest does not impede first

nations land settlements. In fact, when you look at our record in the last 20

months or so, you'll see that we've actually progressed on first nations claims.

We've got some negotiations happening, and we're actually moving forward with

that. The working forest is just another step along the way, and it actually

helps to facilitate those future treaties, those agreements. We are really

focused in this bill on creating land certainty for everyone, including first

nations people.

This act is

not just about rocks in the ground or marble or wood or aquaculture or tourism.

It's really about people. It's about people that live in this province. I have

had the great opportunity, on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services, to travel this province four times, and I've had the

opportunity to do it on another couple of committees. All in all, I think I've

been to a good portion of this province, and I've probably met thousands and

thousands of British Columbians. In meeting those British Columbians, I see

people — moms and dads — who are trying to earn a living to raise their kids

and stay in their communities, to help their communities grow.

This bill

is about people in Prince Rupert trying to make a living. This is about people

in Kitkatla being able to engage in agricultural activities, being able to

ranch. It's about letting people of the Kootenays have an opportunity to take

the great mineral wealth they possess, which we all possess, and put it to work

for British Columbians.

It's a very

important piece of legislation because it deals with that very important part of

what we all are. We are people. We are people who need to have jobs, who need to

have opportunity. Sometimes there is a great disconnect in this province, and

I've talked about it before, but it is really a disconnect between urban and

non-urban areas.

The other

day I was having a conversation with the member from Prince Rupert, and we

started to talk about that disconnect. He expressed it to me very well. He said:

"You know, we come down to Vancouver or Victoria, and we see your roads, we

see your cars, we see your hospitals, and we see all of the wonderful things

you've done. We know there used to be trees here, but there aren't anymore. We

know the buildings you've built are from the rocks or the timber of this land,

and we know that you're doing very well." And we are; we really are. From

the point of view of someone in Prince Rupert, when they have a dream, when they

want to pursue an opportunity, someone from down here goes up there and says,

"No, you can't do that. You can't do that because we're going to protect a

view corridor for a mountain landscape," or what have you.

[1600]

There are

lots of beautiful places in this province, and, yes, we want to protect those

areas, and, yes, we want to protect those views and all of that. But you know, I

have never met a forester or a miner or a tourism operator or a rancher who

wasn't an environmentalist, who didn't care about the land they were working.

Why? Because they respect it. It provides food for them, it provides opportunity

for them, and it provides a way for them to keep their communities. That is a

noble cause, and that drives them to be environmentalists, as I believe most

British Columbians are. We care about the beautiful province that we have.

Today we're

talking about a province that is the size of Oregon, Washington and California.

It's a big, big land — 95 million hectares. Twelve percent of that has been

dedicated to parks in this province. You know, down the road we might find we

want to come up with other protected areas. We should do that in the full public

view. We should do that in this House, and we will.

We also

need to understand that people around this province want to have a job, want to

live in the communities in the heartlands and want to raise their kids.

Everything we touch today comes from natural resources. The glass we drink from

— it's from the mining sector; the wood on this desk, from the forest sector.

We can't

afford to be holier than thou in Vancouver-Burrard or Victoria–Beacon Hill or

whatever. We can't drive our cars to work and expect the rest of the world not

to be able to have access to metals. We've got plugs here for our computers.

Where would we be without

[ Page 7496 ]

the minerals? It's important that we think about the balance between the

social needs we have in our communities, the economic needs we have in our

communities and the environmental needs.

With this

bill we are providing the balance we need in British Columbia to assure British

Columbians that we're doing the right thing and that when we do the right thing,

we will be doing it in full public view in this chamber. It will make a

difference for all British Columbians because it will open up the opportunity to

take advantage of the resources that belong to each and every one of us in

British Columbia.

W. Cobb:

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 46. As many of you know, I was

involved in another life in land use planning. I don't know what the member of

the opposition was referring to when she said they had a forestry planning

process that they abandoned, but I do know about a process called the CORE

process — the Commission on Resources and Environment. That process was not

about planning. That process was about social engineering, and that is why it

failed.

With that,

we in the Cariboo took charge of that process when the government of the day

decided we were beyond coming to terms with the issue of trying to set some

security in our area. We took control of that process, and we actually ended up

negotiating a deal. That deal is called the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. I

think Bill 46 will assist in the further securing of that plan and many of the

processes that are going on and that have gone on in the province.

Our plan,

the CCLUP, sets out many of the guidelines that were needed and that are needed

as we move forward in plans around the province. We call it a living plan. I

believe we need a living plan — a working plan and a living plan — to ensure

that future generations have the flexibility and the ability to adapt and

service and address their needs. We can't today determine what our children are

going to need and what they want and what the future may develop. By developing

a proper plan, which this legislation will help us do, we'll allow those future

generations to adapt those plans to suit their needs. Like I said, this

legislation will protect that.

[1605]

Bill 46

will create economic and employment certainty by providing our communities, the

community I live in, with the certainty we need — knowing where we can work,

where there are jobs that our families depend on. Those jobs keep the B.C.

economy growing. Whether it's agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, back-country

recreation, mining or forestry. It's interesting that all of those sectors were

involved in our land use planning. That's why I stayed involved for five years.

With the

exception of two sectors, we did come to terms with the planning of our area to

set up the future. The mining sector is one of the examples. This initiative

accommodates a two-zone mineral policy, which confirms that all land outside

parks and protected areas is open to mineral exploration and development —

subject to application legislation — and also to develop access targets for

subsurface and surface uses.

We just got

back. We toured around the province over the summer on the mining task force,

and we heard time and time again about the two-zone system. Can we mine? Can't

we mine? What this will do is tell us we have two zones in this province — the

protected areas and parks — and the rest of it will be open for mining. That's

what the intent of this is, and that's where the plans will come at a later

date.

As far as

agriculture goes, agricultural land within this legislation will be available

for disposition where the good economic analysis shows net benefits to the

overall provincial needs. I think in areas like mine, particularly the Cariboo

— where there's a lot of cattle industry, and they depend on the grazing lands

and the access to the land — this will help secure those people.

There was

mention by two different members here today regarding some of the information or

misinformation that's out there. Bill 46 is not exclusive to logging. It's about

the best use of land, whether it is set aside for environmental protection or

industry development, and land will be assessed scientifically for highest and

best use options economically, socially and environmentally.

Like other

members, I think, I have heard and had phone calls and e-mails about the scare

tactics going on out there that this is about selling our forests. That is

absolutely untrue. It's absolutely wrong, and this has been mentioned by other

members. The working forest is not about privatization. As the minister said, a

current measure of this act,

section 23, outlaws the sale of Crown land for

timber production purposes, so anybody who's trying to spread that rumour is

either misinformed or just trying to cause a problem.

Environmental

protection is a fundamental commitment of the government and is a key component

of forest management. Nothing in this legislation is intended to detract from

goal. Greater certainty for the forest sector and other economic users can only

be realized if there is also increased certainty on the environmental impacts.

Two of my

main communities — the bigger communities — have supported this legislation,

and I have letters in support of that. Those communities and councils know how

important the type of security we need for the land base is, because they make

those kinds of decisions on a daily basis in their communities. Although I

support the intent of this legislation, I will have questions of clarification

at the committee stage.

Trumper: I rise to speak to this particular bill. As many of you know, I

represent a constituency that hasn't been mentioned this afternoon. We've heard

about the north part of the province and the centre part of the province. I

represent the west coast of Vancouver Island, which relies on the forest

industry for its economic drive, which then results in the urban areas of

[ Page 7497 ]

this province relying on our resources for the economic drive of this

province. Over the last decade or so, it has fallen into a time when that hasn't

been happening.

represented the community that I live in — and I've lived in it for 33 years

— on the Clayoquot Sound task force, which was put in place by the government

of the day to try and work out some solutions for Clayoquot Sound. It was a very

difficult time for a lot of us. I was physically assaulted during this time.

Members of my family had threats phoned in over the telephone. It was a

difficult time for many of us.

[1610]

I note that

in the news just recently, we had the issue of a grandmother who was on the

Clayoquot Sound picket lines and also has had a problem with obeying the laws of

British Columbia. I want to say that many people were put out of work at that

time in the forest industry on the west coast, and to this day they are still

struggling because of some of the decisions made ten years ago. The town of

Ucluelet particularly, which relied on the forest industry for employment, is

still struggling with the issue. They have many people in small forestry

contracting companies who are looking at bankruptcy. They're finding it

incredibly difficult. You know, the effects of what took place then had a domino

effect not only on the west coast but through to Port Alberni — to our paper

mills, to the many sawmills that are in the area and, consequently, to the

economy.

I also, for

some reason, was asked to sit on the Round Table on the Environment and the

Economy by a particular minister of the day, which proved even more difficult to

come to some agreement on issues. If we have a thriving economy, we are able to

then provide the supports we need for those who are less fortunate than

ourselves. We are able to supply those programs we have that we need for the

social programs. If we don't have a good economy, we're not able to provide all

those services that are needed. If people are not employed, it causes many other

problems. It causes family problems. It causes problems in bankruptcy to

families. It involves problems with children. By having a job, it provides

stability to the family, and it provides stability to the economy.

As we sat

through the CORE process on Vancouver Island — and I think many of us felt at

the time we were caught in that process — it was very, very obvious it was not

the economy that was being looked at as the primary importance. I distinctly

remember asking for the information on what the economic results were of the

decisions that we were going to be making on Vancouver Island on land use

decisions. I remember specifically asking it one day, and the next day the

economic report was handed to us. I might say that I don't know how they could

do an economic report on the effects on Vancouver Island of the land use issue

within 24 hours.

That made

it very apparent at the time that it was not the economy that was the most

important issue. I want to say that those of us who live in the heartlands of

this province, those of us who choose to live in resource-based communities, are

environmentalists. That's why we live there. We like to live there. We don't

want to live in the urban areas. We like to have our own homes. We like to have

fresh air. We do not particularly want to live downtown, with all due respect to

those who live in Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver has smog problems, traffic

problems, high buildings and, as people say to me sometimes, little boxes to

live in. We choose to live in these areas of the province.

It is

vitally important that we have a plan for land use in this province. There was a

time when we were going through all this turmoil ten years ago, and the

difficulties that were there…. I can remember going on a tour of Europe with

the Forest Alliance at the time to look at the differences in forest management

and land management in Europe. Many times we were certainly told that Sweden had

very good forest practices, and in some places they did. If you went further

north, their practices weren't so good.

[1615]

I've never

forgotten the professional forester who came with us missing his plane. He sat

next to a student. When he asked him where he was from, he was from Spain. He'd

been to British Columbia for the summer. What had he been doing? Well, as a

matter of fact, he said, he was in Victoria, and he was hostelling. He got

offered $20 a day to go and hold a placard in the Carmanah Valley and the

Walbran Valley to prevent logging. This young man didn't realize that he was

sitting next to a professional forester, who was trying to do a good job in

British Columbia and trying to do his job well. For many of those decisions made

then — when we on the west coast were promised by the Premier of the day that

no jobs would be lost — to three or four years ago, when my son, who is a

professional forester, left British Columbia because he felt he could not do his

job properly….

We need to

get back to the time and the day when we are able to manage our land properly so

that everybody has certainty, everybody knows what is going to happen in the

various parts of the province, and it is clear that those who wish to be in

forestry can do their job and add to the economy of this province and those who

wish to be in tourism, which is a growing industry for British Columbia because

we are seen as a safe place for international markets, can expand their

businesses — and for mining, which for so many years has not been happening

here. I have a cousin who many, many years ago came to British Columbia to get

his mining experience. He is a mining engineer. I don't believe he stayed in

British Columbia; I believe he went elsewhere in the international market. We

need to have those assurances that we're able to do what needs to be done on the

land.

Unfortunately

— and it is unfortunate — I've had a few letters and phone calls regarding

this particular bill, and there is a view out there, or it has been said, that

this is an opportunity to sell Crown land. That is just not true, and it is not

correct. I want to emphasize that it is just not correct. It is either

misinformation, or

[ Page 7498 ]

some people are reading into it something that is just not there.

It is also

not about preventing access to our Crown lands either. I have had calls from

people in the tourism business who say they will not be able to access the back

country. That is not true. As a matter of fact, they're not able to access the

back country unless there are logging and mining roads, which enable access.

They would not be able to get through into the back country in many places if

there were not that access, which had been made by industry.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that I do support this at this time, but like a previous

member of the Legislature has just said, I have some questions to ask of the

minister when it gets to the committee stage so that some of the issues can be

clarified for the general public. At this time, I would say it is most important

that we pursue this, that we go forward with this plan so that we know we can

have stability for our economy and our resource communities, and can also

provide the employment needed that makes us the strong and vibrant province we

should be and can be if we work towards making sure we know what we are going to

be doing with the land in this province.

Visser: I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about the Land Act and this

bill and the future of the province and how it relates to activities on the

North Island and where we think we're going and where we'd like to go.

One of the

concepts that has been mentioned a lot here in the chamber today and around is

the notion of certainty. It's a difficult concept to grasp. For some in the

resource world certainty has been compromised, because the goalposts have been

moving for the last few years — sometimes on a monthly basis, sometimes on a

weekly basis and sometimes on a daily basis. People can't tell if they're

standing still or running anymore.

[1620]

What

certainty doesn't mean, though — and I think that's where we need to start —

is that we're going back to the good old days or what people would like to think

were the good old days — the way we used to do things, the way we used to act

on the land base. That's not what certainty is. Certainty means that change will

occur, but certainty means that inside of that change is a context. In that

context the people who act on the land — the forest industry, the mining

industry, the tourism industry, the aquaculture industry, all of them — are

going to have a role to play and an avenue to have their interests and concerns

understood. That's what certainty is. Certainty means a place in the process —

a marker, an ability to say: "I belong here. I belong on this working

landscape. This is my place to go." We need some tools to get there. We

need bills like this to get that marker, to be able to hand that chip out, to be

able to provide folks with the ability to invest, create, innovate and carry our

economy forward across this province.

This issue

needs some context, and it needs to be put in the context of the Forest and

Range Practices Act. The Forest and Range Practices Act, the move to

results-based activities, says that you need to be informed by objectives. You

need landscape objectives and higher-level objectives on the land base in order

to achieve your goals, in order to act appropriately on the land base. We need

the tools to get there. You need that high-level plan, that high-level filter,

because below it, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, his staff,

industry, communities and other interests have got to make considerable progress

over the next few years on something called landscape-level planning. That's

where you talk about visuals. That's where we talk about old-growth retention,

about critical habitat, about riparian zones — all of those things.

We need to

build into this. This act gives us those tools to get us to that place inside

the regulatory world, inside that results-based world where we're actually

empowering professionals — the professional foresters, the professional

biologists, the professional agrologists and the professional engineers — to

innovate on the land base. This is the context it provides. We need this

detailed work done. We need it done because we've got to go find new markets;

we've got to develop new products; we've got to get out in the world and sell

what we do to the world. In this province we do forestry, tourism, aquaculture

and mining better than any other place in the world, and we need to celebrate

that and take it into these new marketplaces.

You can't

go to these new marketplaces anymore unless you've got your homework done and

you've behaved on the land base, because the markets won't want you. This isn't

smoke and mirrors; this isn't some sort of fantasy. This is the hard work we

need to make sure we can find a place in the world economy with our products.

That includes our tourism products, our forest products and our aquaculture

products.

This is

interesting stuff. It's a piece; it's one part. It's a layer; it's an important

layer. It helps us focus; it helps us crystallize; it helps us move forward; it

helps us manage change. It's not done in secret. I was involved in those land

use planning processes. For the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say

this is all about secrecy is absurd. I think they hold the record for

last-minute land use deals truncated and done secretly at the cabinet table.

It's amazing that she has the effrontery to stand up and say something like

that