1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 8

[ Page 12717 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. E. Cull: Today we have a special guest in the gallery. Arnaldo Albeti is the newly appointed consul general of Italy in Vancouver. He is accompanied by Yolanda McKimmie, the honorary vice-consul of Italy in Victoria. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. D. Marzari: Visiting in the gallery today are two members of the New South Wales Parliament: Mr. Peter Cochran, MP, and Mr. John Price, MP. They are here with their partners. Would the House join me in welcoming them to British Columbia.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a very good friend, Don Goodman. He is over here from Delta to watch us at work and to play a little golf. I explained to him that as much as I would have liked to join him, the Speaker required my presence here. So let's hope that all of his drives go straight and all of his putts drop.

J. Beattie: In the gallery today is the mayor of Peachland, Mr. Gordon Harris. He's accompanied by the municipality's administrator, Bill Brown. They're here to do the work of the citizens of Peachland, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome today.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL TAX RATES

G. Campbell: Today -- 186 days into the year -- the average B.C. family gets out from under the highest tax burden in Canada. That's later than any other province in the country. Today is called Tax Freedom Day....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the member please proceed with his question.

G. Campbell: In spite of the NDP promises of no tax increases and no new taxes, it takes three and a half weeks longer to get to Tax Freedom Day in British Columbia than it did in 1991. My question is to the Premier. How can the Premier possibly justify the highest marginal income tax rate on individuals in the country, the highest tax rate on small businesses in the country and the most onerous tax burden on families in the country?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened with some interest to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues talking about how the average British Columbia family is paying $2,000 more in taxes. That average family that he's talking about is making an average family income of $125,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will let the people of British Columbia decide whether they are going to listen to the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition or to the following words from an independent economic expert who says that B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada, and the highest quality of public service in Canada. "Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada; the reasons will become even more compelling in the future."

Unlike the opposition, we don't make this sort of stuff up. This is from G.A. Pedersson and Associates Ltd.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The story gets worse as this government goes out and borrows more and more, in spite of previous promises. We can all recall when the Premier said: "I won't borrow any money that British Columbians don't have. We won't spend any money that British Columbians don't have." Yesterday the Premier said he was pleased to borrow as much as he felt like. The fact of the matter is that if you take into consideration the deficit today, Tax Freedom Day is not until August 6. And if this government continues with its policies, in 1996 it will be after Labour Day.

How can the Premier justify the highest marginal income tax rate in Canada, the highest tax rates to small business in Canada, and the highest and most onerous tax burden on families in Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition should be well aware, we have the lowest per capita debt load of any province. He continues to apologize for Ottawa -- whether it's Conservative or Liberal -- dumping $6.5 billion of health, education and social services on the taxpayers of British Columbia. And he continues to apologize for the Socreds, who were spending at a rate of 13 percent, which was almost as high as the David Peterson Liberals were spending before they were tossed out of office in Ontario.

I am pleased that we have turned the corner and reduced the deficit over 60 percent. We have a three-year tax freeze and $112 million of tax cuts. The deficit is coming down, jobs are going up, and B.C. is the top economy in North America.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

F. Gingell: Yesterday in this House, the Premier said that he was happy to spend borrowed money. What he did not mention was that British Columbia's tax-supported debt has increased 60 percent since this government took office. His massive re-election bid is not only adding to this debt but to the mortgage that our children will have to pay in the future. Can this Premier today outline his plans for reducing not just the rate of increase in the debt but reducing the debt itself over the next two years?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We in the government know that B.C. is a growth province. We have 100,000 new British Columbians every year in this province. This is the number one economy, the front door onto the Asia-Pacific. We're building for that future. The best thing the Liberals can do is either get out of the way -- they are standing in the way of progress -- or get on board.

Before the member for Delta South talks too much, I think he should look at the track record of his leader, who, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, increased the city of Vancouver's accumulated debt by 46 percent. The present city comptroller had this to say about the Vancouver legacy, if you can call it that, of the Leader of the Opposition. I quote the city of Vancouver's comptroller: "They were doing what they do at The Brick and Future

[ Page 12718 ]

Shop -- no payments until 1995. What they have been doing the last three years amounts to deficit financing."

The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier. Would the Premier please conclude.

Hon. M. Harcourt: What a track record, hon. Speaker!

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The real test is that this province's debt is going up at a faster rate than the gross domestic product. It is going up at double the rate of the gross domestic product. The only way to stop this hemorrhaging of our future income is to ask the Premier to call an election. He seems to have no idea that the interest cost on the tax-supported debt alone is $2 billion a year. It is more than double the cost of law enforcement, police protection and corrections. Can the Premier explain how he can justify this massive debt increase at the expense of public protection?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We'd like the Liberal opposition to be consistent for at least two days in a row. Yesterday they said: "You're not spending enough in our ridings. We want you to spend more on our ferry terminals, schools and courthouses and more on the Westview interchange." That interchange is in riding of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. Yesterday they said: "Spend more." Today it's: "Spend less." Make up your bloody minds! [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting how much they appreciate unparliamentary language.

EFFECT OF HIGHER INTEREST RATES ON GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The budget deficit and the government's borrowing requirements were predicated on interest rates of between 4 and 5 percent. Today commercial rates are nearly double that, and most economists predict that they will increase further. Can the minister tell us the effect of these increases in interest rates on the government's borrowing requirements and debt-servicing costs?

Hon. E. Cull: The impact we estimate right now of the change in interest rates from what we had in the budget is in the order of about $25 million. However, that's only half the story, because the lower Canadian dollar is increasing our exports and making our businesses more competitive. Our latest economic forecast shows that in sum, when you net that all out, we're actually ahead because of the benefits to our export industries.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The government is borrowing money as if there is no tomorrow -- $370 million at our last count. Indeed, for this government there is no tomorrow; after the next election, they'll be gone. The simple question is: how much are these increased rates now costing British Columbia -- $100 million, $200 million or $300 million? No one in their right mind would believe the figure of $25 million put forward by the Minister of Finance.

Hon. E. Cull: I encourage the member to have another look at the budget, because it's all set out quite clearly in the budget. The capital spending plan for this year is set out clearly: it's a total of $4.1 billion in borrowing, including all the Crown corporations, B.C. Rail and everyone else that we borrow on behalf of. The net impact on the government's budget this year, as I've just said, is in the order of about $25 million.

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD CHAIR

M. de Jong: British Columbians woke up this morning and discovered yet again that this NDP government has been unable to say no to one of its friends -- a diminishing number of friends, but a friend nonetheless. We are told that Joy Leach will live in Nanaimo as the chair of the Public Service Appeal Board, apparently due to lower rent costs. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a total crock. My question to the Premier is: can he tell us where these appeals are going to be heard? Who's going to pay the bloody travel costs that staff are going to incur travelling from Victoria to Nanaimo to get to Mrs. Leach's living room?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The analysis was done, and it is cheaper for the taxpayers to have the chair stay in Nanaimo.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The second part of the answer to the question by the hon. member is that the chair travels to where the employees are, whether she's living in Victoria or in Nanaimo, and will hold these hearings where the employees are.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: This, of course, is in light of statistics which show that only one appeal arose out of Nanaimo in the past number of years.

The real joke is that the government has appointed a full-time chair at all. The last chair was a part-time position paid on a per diem basis. My question to the Premier is this: why has the minister and his government caved in to an NDP friend, not only allowing her to stay in Nanaimo and operate out of her living room but paying her $78,000 for a job that was formerly done on a part-time, per diem basis? Is this what the Premier means by fiscal responsibility?

Hon. E. Cull: As the minister responsible, I'm really pleased to be able to answer this member's questions. After the public service made a decision to locate the new Public Service Appeal Board in Nanaimo, we did an independent review through Treasury Board that concluded that the staff were right: it was the cheapest solution because of cheaper lease costs. To date, however, since Ms. Leach has been on the job, we have seen only one or two appeals here in Victoria. The rest of them have been all around the province, and in every case the

[ Page 12719 ]

transportation costs have been either comparable or cheaper.

BID FOR THE SUMMER OLYMPICS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier may be aware of some discussions that are currently taking place for a joint bid proposal on the Summer Olympics for the year 2004 that would include the cities of Vancouver, Seattle and possibly Victoria as well. I wonder if the Premier could tell us something that his Sports minister has been unable to tell us. Apparently the Sports minister has indicated that the province may not be up to the challenge of helping to host an event that could be the single most innovative undertaking for British Columbia since Expo 86.

Could the Premier indicate whether or not he is aware of the idea, whether or not he supports it and whether or not the government is prepared to undertake feasibility studies to see whether British Columbia could participate in such a bold undertaking?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think members of this Legislature are all aware of British Columbia's tremendous track record over the last few years for hosting games. The most successful Canada Games ever was hosted last year in the smallest community that has ever hosted those games, Kamloops. They were very successfully run. The Western Canada Summer Games took place very successfully, and the Commonwealth Games, which we're going to host very shortly, will be a splendid success that people from all over the Commonwealth will enjoy. So of course we're very aware of the ability of British Columbians to stage these major sporting events.

I am aware of this proposal. I am also aware of the difficulties of hosting an Olympic event in a variety of cities across international boundaries, and that is one of the major stumbling blocks we are facing. We are looking into it. I am certainly open to the idea, and I thank the member for his interest in this very important proposal.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 56.

FOREST LAND RESERVE ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

The Speaker: On Bill 56, the amendment debate was adjourned by the hon. member for Alberni, deferring to the Premier on second reading of the bill.

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order.

A. Warnke: I want to remind the House that we are speaking to the amendment, not the bill itself.

The Speaker: That's correct, hon. member. I think I made that point, but thank you.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to join the debate on this historic piece of legislation, the Forest Land Reserve Act, and the amendment to hoist this very important piece of legislation. Of course, I rise to speak against the hoist amendment to delay this historic piece of legislation.

I think we are all aware that the question of our forests inspires strong feelings among British Columbians. There is one small group of people who say that no more logging should be allowed in our forests, and there is another small group that says that there shouldn't be any more parks. The problem is that past governments have responded to pressure tactics employed by these small groups of quite loud and aggressive proponents of those two views. Unfortunately, the opinions of the vast majority of our citizens who take a more balanced approach have been ignored.

The vast majority of our citizens know that we have to change the way we manage our forests. If we don't, our children and grandchildren will face not only an economic but an environmental disaster.

This morning the Leader of the Third Party chided the Minister of Forests for dealing with two dimensions of a

three-dimensional problem with this legislation. This is from a member who was part of a government that didn't even admit that a problem existed at all -- a government that had 30 years to take action and did nothing. This government has listened to and consulted with the people of British Columbia, and many have called for this forest land reserve. I'll name just a few for the hon. members who are asking who has been consulted and who supports it. The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and the CORE Vancouver Island land use plan are a few of the very important organizations that have come out in support of this.

As a matter of fact, even the Leader of the Opposition -- who has just left the chamber, unfortunately -- said in February that there should be parts of this province which are for an active forest program, and that in fact, if you want, there be a forest job zone, just like there should be a preserved area. That sounds like a reserve to me. So I was surprised when the member for Surrey-White Rock stood this morning and called to delay the bill. I didn't know if he had spoken to his leader. I didn't know if he was clear about his leader's support for this reserve. Maybe he should check with his leader on this, or he will find himself on the list to be knocked off.

As I said at the beginning, I do not support the delay. Delay is simply a tactic that too many governments and political parties have used in the past to avoid taking a position. This government is prepared to back this bill and see it through, and to implement a bill that will make sure that 81 percent of Vancouver Island will not go into parks, urban sprawl or the strip development that is making life very difficult for the communities on the east side of Vancouver Island.

This use of delay has, for far too many years, avoided taking the action we need so we can have a stable and secure future for this province. I'm disappointed to see that the Liberal Party is adopting this tactic, this form of denial. I cannot support the hoist motion that is before us.

[2:30]

Our government has a plan that provides for economic and environmental stability and security. We established CORE as an element of that plan so that citizens could participate. We implemented the forest renewal plan, where almost $2 billion will be reinvested over the next five years back into our forests and into the forest industry. Our government has introduced B.C.'s first-ever forest practices code, where there are tough standards, tough enforcement and strong penalties, which,

[ Page 12720 ]

unfortunately, the Liberal opposition voted against. That is unfortunate.

This government has shown that it is prepared to carry out its commitment to protect, by law, 12 percent of the representative and significant ecosystems in the province as park and wilderness areas. Through the Minister of Forests, our government has started the long-overdue timber supply review to give accurate information for sustainable harvests, instead of the overcutting and the falldown that was going to come about over the next 15 years, particularly on the coast. The Forest Land Reserve Act is part of one of the most dramatic and comprehensive plans to bring about sustainable development in the number one industry in this province.

Over a hundred communities depend, for the most part, on the health and well-being of the forest industry and on sustainable forest practices. We want to make sure that there is stability and security in our commercial forest land base, and that is as important as providing for the protected areas. We've all known for years that legislating protected areas is an important sign of government commitment.

We also know that the commercial land base for the forest, mining and other resource industries of the province depends every bit as much on legislated recognition, and they're as worthy of that recognition of their interests as those who are asking for protected areas. This bill allows and sets in place legislated designation of the commercial forest land base. In particular, this bill recognizes that private forest lands are an important part of the commercial forest land use base.

Owners who have made a decision to hold private managed forest land, and have received tax benefits on that basis, will be included in this reserve. If they choose, owners can apply to remove their lands from the reserve. But to do that they're going to have to go through a process that involves the local communities, which are going to feel very strongly about any removal for a subdivision, strip development or more parks.

Owners who have committed to manage lands for long-term forestry, and have received tax benefits, can no longer change use now to sell or develop it and pocket the profits, without considering the forest workers in their communities who depend on those forests. That's a very important fundamental enshrined in this legislation.

As well, the Crown land that's included in the forest land reserve should not be treated any differently than private lands are. The Crown land on Vancouver Island will be included in the reserve, and we have said that other Crown land in the province will be included as planning processes in those areas conclude. So citizens have been consulted on Vancouver Island and are being consulted in land use planning processes, either through CORE or through the regional natural resource planning that's taking place. What is unfolding....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour has, I think, overextended himself in interrupting the member who has the floor. I would ask him to wait until he has been recognized, when we'll all look forward to his participation in the debate. But this is very difficult, hon. member.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is just so overjoyed at receiving the largest grant of any riding in the province, for Camp Jubilee. Just to show how fair this government is, he's still expressing his thanks to this government for that. He's being egged on by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who just received a go-ahead for completing the Westview interchange to get rid of the last stoplight from Hope to Horseshoe Bay. If the members can't control themselves, I think it's because of the gratitude that their electors feel toward this government for the way we're building for a better future, just as this act....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Premier, the Chair has reprimanded the hon. member, and I would hate to have to now reprimand the hon. Premier. Please proceed with the debate.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I accept, with due humility for that breach of etiquette by the Premier. I'm just trying to say, in a longer

preamble than I intended, that we want to bring the same security and stability to our forest-based communities that we are to the voters and citizens on the North Shore.

We think that that's what this act is all about. It's going to involve working with British Columbians who understand the need to change the way that we've managed our forests. We need to leave behind the narrow and entrenched attitudes of the past and set very specific environmental goals and work together to meet them. Twelve percent of the province is protected as untouched wilderness.

By working together to renew our forest resource, communities will benefit from much more investment in forest renewal and revitalization through projects that are starting as we talk. The $52 million that I announced last week will be going into scores of projects to renew our watersheds, to reclaim the forest from logging roads that should be taken out and replanted, and to do intensive silviculture and other work.

Unlike any other government in the past, the security of the commercial forest land base is an important part of this government's commitment to the number one industry in British Columbia, the forest industry, and to the importance of the forest -- to the values, in a broad sense, of all British Columbians. This Forest Land Reserve Act provides just that security. It's a vital part of the work that we're doing to meet the needs of British Columbians, not just now but into an ecologically viable and sustainable future.

On its own, and as part of the package of initiatives we are putting forward to change the way we manage our forests, this bill, as I said at the beginning of my comments, is a historic piece of legislation. So I cannot support the amendment that the member for Surrey-White Rock has put forward. I would urge the other side not to delay and not to get in the way, but to support this very important piece of legislation, and then we can turn our attention to renewing the number one industry in this province, our forest industry.

G. Campbell: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond in second reading of Bill 56. I apologize for having to leave and miss some of the Premier's comments. I hear he was making some comments about the Forest Land Reserve Act.

Let me just say that the government has been putting forward....

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order.

[ Page 12721 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I just wanted to remind the member, because he was incorrect, that we are debating a hoist motion to delay passage of the bill for six months, rather than second reading.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, the point is well taken. Debate is on the hoist motion to the bill, just for all members who may not have been aware of where we are. We are on second reading of the bill, but it's in the form of an amendment.

G. Campbell: I am aware that we are speaking to the hoist motion, and I am in favour of the hoist motion, as I'm sure you would expect.

The government has rightly pointed out how important our forests are in British Columbia and has brought in a number of pieces of legislation to try to reflect its concern about the forest and how we manage it, and how we may manage it in the future. That concern and the diligence with which they prepared the legislation was reflected in the work that was done on Bill 40, when we had 80 amendments dropped in the House yesterday and we had debate carrying on until 4:45 in the morning. The problem with doing that is that it does not lead to the kind of deliberation that I think our most important resource in British Columbia deserves, and I believe the government understands that.

When the government says that they are as concerned with regard to local governments as they are with regard to the Forest Land Reserve Act, I think it's very important to note that local governments were not consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation. They were told the legislation was being put on the floor of the House. They have not been consulted, and they have not been considered in terms of how the bill will respond to the needs, and indeed the responsibilities, of local government throughout the province of British Columbia.

I would like to speak briefly to some of the principles in this bill. Our party, the opposition, has said quite clearly that we are in favour of a working forest zone in the province. The concerns that we have with regard to the bill are: (1) it has not been out in the public for discussion; and (2) it really focuses on privately owned land as opposed to public land, which in fact is the majority of forested land in the province.

It seems to me that if we're going to create a policy which is robust and not punitive, but which encourages the kind of activities the government purports to want to encourage, it is not going to be appropriate to simply focus on one segment of the land base which is so essential to the forest lands in British Columbia.

We know already that there have been a number of games played with the statistics, and I think it's important again to note that the government has fooled no one involved with the forests with regard to those statistics. Once again we hear, I think from the minister, the statistic that over 80 percent of the forest will be included. What the minister has failed to point out is that the regulatory regime which has been imposed here is simply another burden on the people and on industry in British Columbia. It is simply another bureaucracy which is going to be put in place.

As I think you may know, hon. Speaker, and as I'm sure my colleagues know, I have been a supporter of the agricultural land reserve. The problem with the Forest Land Reserve Act is that, like the agricultural land reserve, it deals with only a small portion of the public policy which has to be put in place if we are to secure the kind of stability and long-term security for forest work that is so essential to the future economy of British Columbia.

When you look at the agricultural land reserve today, as I'm sure some of my colleagues will mention to you, there are a number of areas that must be improved to reflect regional concerns. One of the concerns I have with regard to the legislation before us is that it gives lip service to regional decision-making and regional consultation, but there is no clear way that a region gets to make its own choices about how the forest land reserve will be structured, how it will be formed, what will be in it or what will be out. In the end, I believe the government believes it always know best; their commission always knows best.

I believe that if the bill was hoisted, and we had a chance to discuss this with the local and regional communities across the province, we would end up with a stronger and more workable piece of legislation. In the end we have to take the government at its word that it would in fact like to secure a working forest zone in British Columbia. To do that we must respond to local and regional concerns, and we must be sure that local and regional decision-makers play an active role in reaching conclusions with regard to the forest land reserve. That is not reflected in the bill to date.

I believe consultation with those jurisdictions would help us create a better bill, a more workable bill and a bill that would provide the kind of security that has been referred to earlier by other speakers who spoke against the hoist motion.

[2:45]

When we look at the issues before us, it is also important to note that there are a number of problems we have experienced in terms of the agricultural land reserve which remain as part of the Forest Land Reserve Act. The appeal to the cabinet is not something that I think will hold up in terms of long-term public policy. We've been trying to remove agricultural land appeals from the cabinet. I understand that the cabinet has finally decided it's time to remove Motor Carrier Commission appeals from the cabinet because of the obvious problems that that created.

I believe we have to do the same thing with regard to the Forest Land Reserve Act. That has not taken place. The forest land reserve can be selectively overruled by cabinet with an

order-in-council.

I think we should learn from the mistakes of the past instead of simply trying to ride roughshod over the communities of British Columbia and setting up a system where it may be possible to treat your friends differently than you would treat the general public. Far from providing the kind of local input that the minister claims the bill does, I think there is every possibility that this bill will actually prevent local governments from passing regulations and bylaws that are well within their proper domain. It seems to me that we have to restructure the way we think about these policies to make sure that local communities are fully informed and fully involved in the decision-making.

I'm also concerned with regard to the sections of the bill that deal with the recapture. These

definitions again seem to be arbitrarily decided and are really based on an ideology that says if you own private land, you're bad; and if you don't, you're okay. The fact of the matter is that the recapture provisions have no real basis in economics. It is not possible for us to look at the recapture provisions and say with any kind of certainty what situation will evolve. Eventually what you do is freeze opportunities in

[ Page 12722 ]

communities throughout this province for active and sensible use of their land base which will meet their requirements, not the requirements of some ideologically driven policy from the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It seems to me that when you talk about the recapture tax, you're getting into an enormous can of worms -- which it is necessary, frankly, to fully canvass, with all that may be involved with regard to this act.

So when we ask that this act be hoisted for six months, that the public actually be brought in and that the clauses of the bill be reviewed in detail, what we are asking is that we open up the government so that what can be an important cornerstone of public policy is fully perused and is not subject to the kinds of problems which we've already found with the Forest Practices Code and which I'm sure will be found as we go through the bill.

I would urge the House to approve the amendment put forward by the member. I believe hoisting the bill is in the best interests not just of the forests of British Columbia but of the communities and the working families of British Columbia. They are counting on us to carry out sensible public policy that reflects their needs and concerns, not some ideological myth that people don't seem to be able to get their hands on.

Private ownership of land is not something we have to denigrate or fear. Proper public policy includes bringing citizens into the process of drafting legislation so that we all understand what the keys of it are going to be and how we can provide for the security that's required while we are protecting people's private property rights and protecting the forests for the future.

C. Evans: I rise to oppose the hoist motion and the Leader of the Opposition trying to take out of this Legislature the most important thing that's happened in this Legislature in the last ten years.

I think this is what the editorial writers like to call the defining moment of this session of parliament. I want to call the attention of all the people outside this building who consider themselves supporters of the environment and all the forest workers in British Columbia, who have had incredible anxiety over the last few years about the future of their lives, to this moment and this speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to call the attention of the tens of thousands of people who place their faith and their hopes in the CORE process to this moment.

We have gone through two years of argument and dialogue in this province, attempting to resolve the land use issues: where will we work and what will we preserve? We have come to the moment of a plan, and the Leader of the Opposition stands here and says to the people of B.C.: "You're not finished yet; we want to talk for another six months." My God, the gall of the man! Was he at the table attempting to work out the future of their land base with the communities? I don't think so. He was out hustling votes, to see if he could pirate a political party, while the people of Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays were attempting to resolve these issues.

Interjections.

C. Evans: Listen to them, hon. Speaker. The folks without answers have nothing but noise -- sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Maybe I'll just talk to the folks at home. I'm going to start back a few years' time to attempt to put this moment in history in some perspective. In 1986 I had the good fortune to run for office in B.C. What a lot of people may not know -- but I'm sure all of you do, including the folks who are yelling at me -- is that when you run for office some of you is full of hope and some of you is full of bravado, but there is also an element of fear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair was diverted for a second, and it's very obvious that you can't do that around here. I would ask the members to please come to order, to allow the hon. member to proceed with the debate.

C. Evans: It's okay, hon. Speaker. I am reminded of that famous line: "The lady doth protest too much."

The Speaker: Mind you, hon. member....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. When the Chair calls members to order, it applies to all members -- those on their feet as well as those in their places. We are here to debate the hoisting of the bill, and I would appreciate it if members would concentrate on the matter before us.

C. Evans: With as much seriousness as I can bring to bear on the moment -- and in the present company -- I would like to say that I rise to speak against the hoist motion. This is the moment in time to pass this quite excellent legislation.

I would like to back up and give some perspective to this moment, because sometimes in the theatrics and the drama of what we do, we forget where we came from and why we're doing it. I was trying to say that in 1986 when I was working as a bulldozer driver, I had the good fortune to run for office. And sometimes during that election....

Interjections.

C. Evans: Yes, hon. member, skidding logs.

Sometimes during that election I would go home at night and think about the problems that faced British Columbia in the work that I did, and the lack of hope -- in fact, I'd say the despair -- that pervaded our communities on land use issues. And I would say to myself: "Gee, it's a real conundrum.

I want with all my heart to win this election 20 days from now, 19 days from now, ten days from now, but I would hate to admit to the public the trepidation that I have about actually having to sort out these problems, because if the truth be known, they're bigger than any of us." If the truth be known, we were coming off 30 years of land use exploitation that was utterly without management principles.

I lost that election. For a while I was relieved of the obligation of having to sort out the mess. But an incredible thing happened, which I could never have believed in: it began to get worse. Looking up from 1986, at the moment of the election, it looked like we were at a time when the absence of law in how we used land, the absence of sustainable harvest levels and the absence of a

[ Page 12723 ]

land use planning system and ethic had created a situation as bad as it could get anywhere.

Then the previous administration proceeded to prove me wrong by increasing harvest levels to where they knew no sensible arithmetic, biology or honest politics could justify it. By creating a war in British Columbia between different interests in every region, and by demeaning the good efforts of the civil service and making the people charged with the management of this land believe that they were disregarded by the people who work in this place, they made the situation a great deal worse. They allowed and encouraged the buying out of the little companies that were left by huge monopolies.

They created a situation where a great many of the people who believed in land use management were forced into a preservationist mode and believed the only way to protect land was to lock it up.

Then came 1991, and I had that same internal debate I'd with myself in 1986: "I'd really like the challenge of trying to unravel these problems, but my God -- what a job!" Now it was not only the legal, fiscal, ethical and biological problems that we inherited from 30 years of absence of management, but it was the polarity of the people who had learned to fight one another -- exemplified in this House by the uproar we experienced ten minutes ago.

When we were elected, we had several jobs to do right off the bat. I won't belabour the point, but I'm trying to set this moment in historical context. From the day we walked into this place, there had been no stable government for five years. Nobody had been even attempting to resolve any of these questions -- no fiscal government, accountability or budget for two years. It was pretty clear what job number one was.

Job number one was to stop the racing locomotive, to somehow capture in time this runaway economy and the chaos brought to bear upon the land by the absence of government in the previous administration. We did that. We spent the first year bringing some fiscal accountability to British Columbia and returning some faith in government, so the people then would allow us the credibility to have the right and the obligation to have the debates that led to this day.

[3:00]

The previous administration didn't deal with problems. They just created myriads of commissions. Every time somebody said, "Here's a problem; let's deal with it," they said: "No, let's get some people to talk about it." They created the old-growth committee and the round tables; every single issue had its own table somewhere. And no one was charged with solving the problem.

That was job two. Once we brought fiscal accountability to this province and some respect again for government, then we set up the tables in the regions where the biggest problems were -- which is where none of the folks who are shouting at this moment actually live. A whole bunch of people came to those tables with goodwill, some came with a great deal of cynicism and some came with a great deal of hope. While those folks talked in those communities, this government set about to try to build a legislative framework for planning for the future.

Hon. Speaker, with the entrance of this bill, on which a hoist motion is actually being debated -- those folks are asking us to take it out of here -- you see the last of the seven components of a land use strategy being brought in by this government.

It started with the Treaty Commission. Everybody here knows you can't build a house without a foundation, and the foundation underneath this house has been missing for a hundred years.

Second -- and some of these folks may not think it's relevant or even remember it -- we had to bring in AOX standards on dioxin so that when we made something out of wood, we could sell it. We had a reputation on the world market as pirates. The second step in land use was to clean up our act so that when we had a product, we could feel proud of that product.

Then came the third step, which may have been the one that took the most guts. The former Minister of Forests said: "The annual allowable cut is not sustainable. We can't live up to false numbers, build an economy, sit in here and have any integrity in our jobs. We're going to recalculate it based on real numbers. We're going to tell the truth." Maybe the bravest thing any government anywhere can do is tell the truth.

Then came the fourth step. We said: "On this Island, where every single inch is contentious, we will allow the CORE table to resolve land use questions in the Megin and in the Carmanah."

In the fifth step we said that we would increase the resource rents on wood to an honest value for the first time. We'd stop giving away for nothing what God has grown here and what we as people are processing here. Then we said we'd take that money in the forest renewal plan, and we wouldn't spend it in this building; we'd spend it replacing the very value that we cut down in the first place. It's a kind of economic sustainability. It's a notion of investment that mirrors the biological idea of stewardship of the earth. We would steward the resources that make the money that comes through this place.

Then came the sixth piece of the legislative framework for our future: the Forest Practices Code. We said that since it takes a ticket to have the right to fix the motor on my cat, and since it takes a welding ticket to fix the canopy on my cat, maybe it would be a good idea if we made some rules and had an educational component on actually driving the thing. Maybe since we have a motor vehicle code that says where the trucks go -- on the right side or the left side -- and we've got all kinds of codes for the people who fly airplanes, and we even have codes for the people who talk on radio, we could make up some rules about how to go to work in our number one industry.

The seventh piece in this framework is some way to get closure. The people whose politics are dependent on the battle don't ever want to see it end -- do you, hon. member? They don't want any limits on the amount of land that preservationists want, and they don't want any limits on what corporations can do with their land, because as long as there is a fight, they've got a political future. What the people need is closure, finality, certainty and a hope that the debate will come to an end and that we'll actually manage the land.

Closure requires that we finally have the guts to stand here and say: "This is a park, and this is a working forest." That's now item No. 7 in a house that we can actually live in and that won't blow over in the first big wind or wash away in a flood -- a house that is sustainable. It is actually the issue of debate here today. We got to item No. 7. We got closure on the issue; we got closure on the political future of some of the people in this room. They want to hoist it and take it out of here, because they can't possibly run for office if it gets through here.

Let's talk about this item No. 7 now. Let's talk about the law that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take

[ Page 12724 ]

out of here. What does it say? It says that all the land that people have been getting tax breaks for as managed forest land, for a real long time, will be managed forest land forever. They got all that advantage.

Shell Oil, where I live.... Shell Oil is not exactly my neighbour. When my neighbours think of the property rights that you folks have been yapping about, they think they're neighbourly property rights: the water that comes on their farm and the title to their land. Shell Oil's right to land is a property right that they can't relate to. Maybe even closer to where I live, there's a forest I actually worked in that belongs to some people called Pluto Darkwoods. They aren't even Canadian folks. Those are property rights as defined by some people in another country.

We're not talking about taking away their land, and I wouldn't want to. We saying that since they've been getting a tax advantage for managing that land, they pay even less taxes than I pay, than you pay or than any of my neighbours pay, because it's managed forest land. Maybe they'd be willing to keep it managed forever. That's all this says, and maybe they'd be willing to pay a little bit if they took it out some day.

Members of the opposition are saying that this is all about ideology and property rights. I'm here to tell you that this is about a future, because the other half of the land that's going into the forest reserve is our land. It's the people's land out there, which we have been fighting about on TV, on the Kennedy Lake bridge and in the courtrooms and the newspapers of this province for years. We're saying that that land -- not just any land; maybe not the land where the folks who are yelling live -- where we have gone through a hard process, the CORE process, will be working forest, and this will be parkland.

If it has gone through a process, been recommended to government and government says it's still forest land, then there will be closure. It will go into the reserve, and you can bet on it, you can count on it, you can raise kids on that basis: it will be forest reserve land.

We are doing it to ourselves. This wonderful place, British Columbia, where the people have had the wisdom to maintain ownership of the land in spite of the occasional political party walking into this place and suggesting that we sell it, where the people have been wise enough to hang on to the land.... People are now going to be wise enough to define it and say: "Look, you guys, we can't have this debate forever. It's got to be one thing or another, and some of it's going into forest reserve."

I want to tell you a little bit of a story....

Interjections.

C. Evans: This issue doesn't look the same to all of us, and it's not anybody's fault, and it doesn't just have to do with what party you're in. There are people in this building who are shouting at me that the people have to have a say over what happens to that land. They're opposed to the idea that it's going into the forest reserve without some kind of process. It's not their fault; their ignorance is not their fault. They work hard, and they work here. They don't know that in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Slocan City, New Denver, Creston and Nanaimo, they've been going through that process for two years. They are finished with the process, and they need to be finished with the fight.

I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, why we need to bring an end to this conversation and why we don't want to go on talking for another six months or another six years.... I was in a conversation with....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The comments between members and making aspersions about members personally are entirely out of place. The Chair is prepared to tolerate a certain amount of levity, obviously. All members know that a certain amount of humour is appropriate. However, we should be cognizant of the need for decorum at all times, and I would encourage members to simply try to restrain themselves as much as possible from interjecting.

C. Evans: I want to tell you a sort of sad story, and a story I hope we're going bring an end to here, about why we need to do this thing. I was in a meeting with some educators and a whole bunch of representatives of the forest industry from the Kootenays the other day, and we were talking about how to involve young people in the future of the forest industry, in wanting to design and make things out of wood.

A woman representing one of the sawmills told us that ILMA -- the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association -- representing many companies from the Okanagan and east has for many years had a $500-a-year bursary which they give out as an award to the young boy or girl child of an employee of one of their member companies who chooses to go into one of the forestry schools in B.C. in any part of the forestry study area. She said that for the last five years, that $500-a-year bursary has gone begging. Not one child of one forest worker has for five years chosen to follow in the profession of their parents. Why is that?

I would submit it's because forest workers know that in the chaos that has been industrial forestry in British Columbia, the companies are ensuring through automation and eating one another in industrial expansion that there is not a future for a great many of those forest workers and their children. The government, through pillaging the wealth that comes out of the forest, has been ensuring that there was no future. All too many of them believe that the environmental debate will never set a solid goalpost that they can depend upon, and the movable goalpost too will see to it that they have no future.

One of the reasons why we have to have this debate now -- the Leader of the Opposition and the third party are dead wrong about wanting to take this measure out of this Legislature -- is to say that there will be closure on the indecision. There will be an investment in the industry, and starting right now those young people can look forward to a future in the industry of their parents.

I want to make a couple of predictions in closing. I want to go out on a limb here and suggest that I can make some guesses about what this legislation will actually mean for this place and for British Columbia.

Firstly, I'd like to predict that beyond all the sound and fury, sometime this afternoon, tonight or next week, the opposition will stand up and actually vote for it. I think they understand that they're looking at a moment of the future -- the future of the land, of the province; maybe their own political future -- and I don't think they can face any of those three options having voted no on this bill.

[3:15]

[ Page 12725 ]

Secondly, I would predict that the positive impact of this piece of legislation will remain in force in British Columbia beyond the political career of you or me or anybody in this room. I think that this law, refined over time, will outlive us all and be seen by future generations as the day we put an end to the fight and began the biology and the good management of our land base.

Thirdly, I'd like to predict that once we get past the debate about this hoist and pass this piece of legislation, we're going to begin to think of creative ways to use the legislation. I'll give you an example. Where I live in the Kootenays, we have a tremendous amount of unmanaged forest land -- 25,000 hectares in my constituency alone. This law, as everyone understands it, does not affect unmanaged forest land or the property rights of those owners.

I would suggest that sometime next year, or in the future, we're going to think up ways to offer people incentives to put their land into managed forest land, to take on a management plan, to hire a forester and to learn how to manage their land. Over time, through incentives, we will increase the commercial forest base in British Columbia.

Fourthly, I predict that this piece of legislation will ensure that the previous Minister of Forests and the present Minister of Forests of this government will both go down in history as the ministers who ended the chaos and began the modern era of a land ethic and land use management in British Columbia.

Lastly, I'm going to predict that all of the seven foundations of our forest policy that we've brought into this room thus far are going to have the effect of chilling the international boycott on our forest products, which has threatened us with the kind of future Newfoundland has experienced with the seal hunt. More than that, I'm going to predict that it will end the uncertainty in communities, in the hearts of forest workers and their children, about whether we will ever face the biologically -- not commercially -- driven fiscal disaster that is modern Newfoundland and the fisheries.

These pieces of legislation, and this piece of legislation, will ensure that the land is there, that the trees are on the land and that there will never be a Grand Banks future for British Columbia.

Thanks for letting me talk so long, hon. Speaker. I'm really sorry that the folks who moved this hoist motion have left the room. I would like to believe that some of them might have been moved by this discussion and that they would change their minds and get on with it. Either way -- if my prediction is right and they're going to vote for it, or if my prediction is wrong and they're going to vote against it -- I want them to vote in the daytime, while the folks at home are still awake and while the people of B.C. can watch them make up their minds.

G. Wilson: I rise to speak against the amendment and in favour of the bill. We have to recognize that there is a time when politicians must end their political posturing and that there is a need to come forward with a tangible, workable plan for land use management in British Columbia. Notwithstanding the fact that we debated well into the early hours of the morning -- something that I found objectionable -- a related bill, the Forest Land Reserve Act is the first step toward what I believe has been necessary in this province for the last 30 years. In fact, I have been advocating it and speaking in favour of it, both as a resource economist since 1974, and as a politician since 1985.

The Forest Land Reserve Act is not perfect, and I would be the first to say that. I think some things within the act should be looked at, reviewed and amended. When we get to committee stage of the bill, we'll have an opportunity to look at that in some detail. But for the first time, it provides an attempt to establish a set-aside area, or a zoned area, that will be predominantly used for harvesting timber and for the support of the forest industry. I think it's important to note that it does not preclude a joint-use approach toward that land.

Similarly, while it does include private land -- and I feel very strongly about private property rights, and I know that that was discussed earlier this morning in the debate on the bill before the amendment was moved -- it does not in any way negate the opportunity for owners of private property to have security. So I think it's unjustified to argue that somehow there's a removal of private property rights through the implementation of this act. I don't believe that's so.

Another principle that the government really needs to be applauded for in bringing it forward -- and I think you have to give recognition where it's due -- is that it takes into account that private property owners have deferred taxes against lands that have been essentially taxed at incredibly low forest rates, and it allows for those people, once those lands have been transferred into a new use -- residential often, or commercial; sometimes industrial -- to pick up that deferment and pay it into the public trust.

I don't think there's anything philosophically or morally -- or economically, even -- objectionable about that principle, because in that instance people have had an opportunity.... Let's be serious. If you study the history of Canada, a lot of the companies that had these large tracts of land were initially granted land for the construction of a railway to resist the continental forces that existed and still do exist -- and, some might argue, exist even more strongly now than before -- with our neighbours to the south.

There is massive potential with respect to timber rights in those land grant areas. If they are converted into different land uses, they should provide that landowner with an opportunity for profit -- profit gained on land where they have essentially had taxation deferred. Therefore in principle I think it is sound to argue that if that land is going to be converted to high-profit use, since it has been held at relatively low or no tax levels, those payments should be made. That is a provision in this act, and I think that in principle we have to support that proposition.

Bill 56 is not perfect. The reason I don't support the hoist motion is that I don't think we'd be in any different position six months hence than we are now in terms of debating the content of this bill. As for the matter of the lack of consultation that has been widely discussed by members of the opposition and refuted by members of government, I think there could be and should be wider consultation and understanding on this bill.

But we don't need to hoist the bill for six months in order for that to come about, because this is step one in what I believe must be a three-step process for an integrated land management system in British Columbia. In a manner similar to the agricultural land reserve, we have attempted -- or the government is attempting here.... Because of the seriousness of the implications of not doing something like this, I say with all sincerity that I hope that we as legislators, as elected members from constituencies -- some of us are from constituencies that depend on the

[ Page 12726 ]

forest industry -- can come together and work together for a change, which would be kind of a nice change, to make this proposition work in the interests of the people. That's what we're really elected to do, although sometimes that's hard to discern from what goes on in this House.

Nevertheless, if we work together to recognize this as step one, then surely step two must be a movement toward putting in place a comprehensive land inventory that will support the basis upon which this forest reserve land is going to be set down. We'll do so in conjunction with other interests that relate to the mining interests, the fisheries interests, the agricultural interests and the tourism interests of the province -- and yes, to the residential, commercial and industrial sectors that are equally as vital if the communities in this province are to be able to prosper and to succeed. So this is indeed the first step of that three-pronged approach.

After having done that inventory, the third piece of this puzzle is to put in place an economic strategy that meshes with this land use plan that we have embarked upon and that recognizes as a fundamental part of it the limits to growth that we must experience if we are to be economically and socially successful in the long term.

In debate this morning, I believe the member for Parksville-Qualicum was the only person who stood up and talked to any degree with respect to the demographics and trends in population growth in British Columbia. This is a critical component that seems not to be looked at with any degree of seriousness in the long-term economic growth and development strategies -- economic, social, political or indeed in land use questions.

It must be looked at, because of the demand being placed upon forest land now -- which this bill seeks to address, or redress in some instances -- with respect to the establishment of that reserve because of encroachment by residential and commercial properties into what have traditionally been forest lands. If anybody believes that that is going to cease and those pressures will diminish or go away, they are wrong.

The proof of that is in the agricultural land reserve and the kind of commentary we heard from the member for Chilliwack this morning, who stood up and said that in some meeting -- I don't know the nature of the meeting the member was at; it was in Kelowna, I believe -- people were actively advocating trashing and getting rid of the agricultural land reserve. It sounded like -- and I don't want to put words in that member's mouth -- that has now become the policy of the official opposition. I would hope that we would recognize that that is not so -- and I certainly hope it is not so.

I know the member well, and I believe that member would be the last person in this Legislature who would support such a move, and I certainly hope it remains that way.

But those pressures are going to be on this particular land reserve. Whether it's forest reserve or agricultural land reserve, those pressures will be there. If this is to work in the long term, notwithstanding the Forest Practices Code, the protected areas strategy, the CORE process and all the other things we have heard about in this debate today, and in debate on this amendment to hoist for greater consultation, we must recognize a limits-to-growth economic and social strategy in this province.

The most successful politicians in the next generation, and probably in this generation, will be those who can come out with a workable economic plan that embraces limits-to-growth strategies and that recognizes that you can put in place limits to growth without stopping expansion and growth of economies within our local communities, and that we can do that through a decentralization of our economic and social system rather than by an ever-increasing centralization of control in a provincial government. If I had any objection to this whole forest strategy....

This minister knows full well the objection that this does centralize control and that it does not provide the degree of decentralization that I believe is necessary and essential if we are to make this work.

I don't think we should be trying to hoist this for six months. That is not going to provide any greater degree of consultation than a reasonably swift passage of this bill might effect to allow us an opportunity over the summer and fall to start to recognize how this will be a workable plan for Vancouver Island and, as it may be a model or a pilot for other regions, how it will hopefully encompass and embrace all of British Columbia.

[3:30]

The second item that has been raised in debate on this hoist motion -- and I would speak to the bill, as I may not have opportunity later on to come back to this in the main motion.... We have heard from this government that somehow this plan, as part of their overall economic strategy for forest renewal, is going to protect against job loss in the forest industry. I believe that is a fundamentally dishonest statement, because this plan will not mitigate against job loss.

Neither will Forest Renewal B.C. or the new Forest Practices Code, in its integration with the forest renewal plan, mitigate against job loss, because there are more jobs lost in the forest sector due to the movement toward a machine-driven industry than there are due to the removal of timber. We have to recognize that, as we become more and more pressured by international economic considerations to make sure we deliver fibre at a competitive price onto the international market.

We're going to have to become a whole lot more efficient with the timber that we're taking out today than with timber that may be taken out in the future. That's why I think -- in looking at this particular plan, if we were to acknowledge it, accept it and to move forward with it -- it's very important that we recognize and communicate to the people of British Columbia the need for a limits-to-growth economic strategy in concert with this. That's the third plank in a

three-part platform upon which this project should be advanced.

I offer that concept to the government in a spirit of cooperation with respect to finding a proper median ground so that we can start to get rid of some of the fear that exists -- and there is a lot of fear right now among people in the small communities that are dependent on the forest industry. I offer it to be constructive in my commentary in this debate.

In terms of the historical record, I truly believe that within ten years' time, certainly within the next generation, those of us who sit in this House will be somewhat irrelevant to the processes that the next generation are going to have to deal with, unless we take some concrete action right now to recognize the very clear environmental warning signs and the very clear economic and social trends that are starting to affect communities -- especially the rural communities -- in British Columbia.

This is a good first step toward a forest land plan, if I can use that term to separate it from the other components that this government has attempted to bring in. Without a doubt, this is the key piece of legislation that this government has attempted to bring in. I'm not going to get into a long diatribe about its timing. I think the

[ Page 12727 ]

minister and the members of the government know my feelings about the timing and the wisdom of pushing debate into the early hours of the morning. That does not do justice to the bill, and it certainly diminishes the dignity of the members who are elected to this chamber. They should be fresh, to come forward in debate with vigour and informed ideas and to give positive comment, so the people of British Columbia know that there are sensible and sound voices speaking out on their behalf. That's who we are here to try to represent. We're not supposed to be here looking to the next election.

We should be here looking toward the next generation, to make sure that generation has the wealth that lies within the public trust protected for them. That's our mandate, and that's what we should be trying to accomplish.

In my closing remarks on this hoist motion, I would say that there needs to be wider consultation. It is time that we recognize that this is indeed a positive first step. It is not a perfect bill, and I'll be the first to say so in committee stage, where I will be offering some positive commentary to improve and enhance this bill. It must be brought forward in concert with the other two planks that I mentioned in my speech. I don't think that this will be a workable plan until I hear from the government members in this House that they are prepared to seriously consider embarking upon a new economic strategy to take us into a new economic paradigm that talks about a limits-to-growth strategy.

Few people understand it, and now is not the time to enter into it in detail. It doesn't mean halting development. It doesn't mean that we all have to go backwards into the 1920s. It doesn't mean that we have to give up the opportunity for local communities to have local control and to be able to expand to meet their needs and their concerns. What it does mean is that we have to recognize that there are limits to our ability to expand and consume, without paying an enormously high price.

In the sense that this bill is the first step toward the implementation of such a limits-to-growth strategy, I think it is worthy of support and assistance. I hope there will be wide consultations on the regulations that accompany this bill, because it is in the regulations and the implementation of those regulations that we will need to have the kind of input that I think the minister alluded to in his opening comments.

There are few times when members can come together to do something that is workable and positive for the province. I believe that Bill 56 is one of the times that we can come together and shelve, however temporarily, the partisanship that tends to be pervasive among politicians and recognize that we have to do something for the people of British Columbia. We have to take some steps to look after and protect the long-term interests of those forest-dependent communities, we have to recognize the economic and environmental warning signs that are out there, and we must put a new strategy in place.

Those who think we can go back to the 1980s have their heads in the sand. They are not looking at the realities of what's out there today. This bill has already transcended us -- we're into a new movement with respect to the management of the lands of this province and a new strategy toward forest renewal.

Rather than entertaining hoist motions and playing more partisan politics on this question, we need to have speedy passage of this bill. This amendment should not pass. I believe this minister should live up to his commitment to consult the communities widely on regulations and on how we can implement this so we can do something positive for all British Columbians and put a sense of hope back into those communities that are dependent on the forest industry.

A. Warnke: I won't take the full time, but I do want to make a few comments in support of the hoist motion put forward by the member for Surrey-White Rock. It really comes from a premise that.... I hear government members putting forward their rationale and arguments in favour of this bill. We've said, incidentally, that the direction is generally where we're headed as well. I should also mention what other members mentioned. I was surprised that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made a reference to the member for Chilliwack.

I believe that if that member were to take a look at the context of that part of the member's speech, he would see that the member actually talked about what people were saying. I'm afraid the comment was taken out of context.

But back onto the main point. When I heard government members put this bill forward and defend it, I was really struck by the tone of attack on the forest industry. That's one thing that I think might raise a cause for concern. Even if I shared some of the ideas that were asserted by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I would like to point out that one cannot necessarily say that because one can agree with the principle and general directions, the premise and approach have to be paid attention to as well.

So the tone of attack on the forest industry, the claim by many government members that this bill is profound.... I've heard this several times today. If it is that profound, then surely what must be needed is some consultation way beyond what has been experienced in this bill.

As pointed out by the Minister of Forests, this is a package of three forest bills designed by the government to make the forests secure. That is one rationale, but as I've heard members defend this package and this particular bill, I really feel that the government has not consulted. It's obvious to a number of people throughout British Columbia that they have not consulted widely or even narrowly.

That raises cause for concern. It's not a matter of a hoist motion just for the sake of just delaying stuff for six months because we have nothing better to do. There is a rationale, a premise from our perspective that something is not quite all right with this bill. Indeed, many members before me -- the member for Peace River South, the member for West

Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for Chilliwack, the member for Surrey-White Rock -- put forward quite eloquently some genuine concerns about the possible or real effect of this bill on private property rights. And this is essentially the reason I don't have to repeat what they have said.

We're not talking about bogus corporations or multinationals and what not. I'm really sick and tired of hearing from some of those members who have nothing better to do than to resurrect the whole bogey of imperialism. I mean, get real; this is the 1990s.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

There was not an attempt to address the important problem raised by the member for Peace River South with regard to native land claims. I know some people would like to ignore that, but let's face it, we are in a very tricky, peculiar period right now when we deal with this very

[ Page 12728 ]

sensitive issue. If you don't believe me, ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The minister and I have debated this at length, and we know how sensitive that issue is.

I really do personally feel as well that somewhere along the line we need to get a grasp on the state of the forest industry. In debate on a bill earlier in this session -- it seems like years ago, but it was only a couple of months ago -- I made it vividly clear, as I have for the last six years at least, what this province needs, what the previous government neglected to do and what this government neglects to do, and that is a comprehensive land inventory.

Surprisingly, this was raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. He says that's a second step. No, I believe it is long overdue. It's been stated by so many people for several years: this is absolutely essential in order to understand where we're going with the forest industry. That has not been done. The Ministry of Forests has not done it for the last six, ten or whatever years. It so happens that other governments have a better idea of the state of the forest industry in British Columbia than we do ourselves.

It's about time that we came to grips with the state of the forest industry, and one way to begin is to start to get a grip on a comprehensive land inventory; then that's where we go from.

I'm very impressed with some of my colleagues on this side who have put forward some of their concerns. Some of their concerns, to my mind, mean that we need support for this motion to hoist the bill for up to six months anyway, or until some point when we are sure there has been an attempt to get in touch with the community.

I know certain members may spell off the names of Creston, Nelson, Cache Creek, Campbell River, Powell River, Prince Rupert and Merritt. It's nice to list a whole bunch of names of places, but I know for a fact that some members opposite haven't even consulted their constituents. I think it would be a darned good idea to get an education out there and get in touch with some of the people in the ridings and get in touch with some of the people who have a direct interest. We're not just talking about some multinationals; we are talking about people who are daily affected by and have a stake in the forest industry.

[3:45]

I would like to see that. Therefore, I don't think it's inappropriate at all to support this motion to go back to the people, to go back to the public, to go back to whomever you have to get in touch with to get a grip on the state of the forest industry and the impact not only of Bill 56 but of the legislation.

I know some government members are very confident that they can go out there on an election issue. I would be happy to go on a campaign on this particular issue. I hope it, I wish it, but it probably won't happen in the next little while.

An Hon. Member: You'll get your wish.

A. Warnke: When?

An Hon. Member: One day.

A. Warnke: One day two years from now when you realize that the people of British Columbia have had it up to here with this government because you failed to consult.

An Hon. Member: You wish.

A. Warnke: My, my, my! If those government members are so confident about the legislation, I challenge them right now: call an election right now, this minute. Get your Premier out here and let's have an election.

I'm voting for the amendment. If these members are confident, then let's have an election issue. But I doubt that. I don't think we're going to see an election, because they have not consulted their communities. They are not really sure. They don't understand why they are low in the polls; they are not really sure what is out there. They hope this is an election issue they can win on, but I guarantee that they will not. When they go back to the communities, they will get an education from the people of the province that this government is way off the track.

The people of the province will begin to go back and say: "You government members, do you have a grip on the forest industry? Do you understand the forest industry? Do you have an inventory of the forest industry? Do you understand how many trees are out there?" I'll bet you there is not an answer that any of those members can give to the constituents.

For the good of the province, I think it is extremely important to support this hoist motion, and I firmly support the initiative put forward by my colleague the member for

Surrey-White Rock.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 15

Chisholm

J. Dalton

Reid

Campbell

Hurd

Gingell

Stephens

Hanson

H. De Jong

Neufeld

Symons

M. de Jong

Warnke

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 41

Petter

Marzari

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Cull

Harcourt

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Pullinger

Evans

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Conroy

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Tyabji

Wilson

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

On the main motion.

F. Gingell: It is very rare that the right solution to anything is delay. But I also remember my father telling me you should look before you leap. I know it's critically important in situations of this type, where the future of many British Columbians and perhaps all of us and our environment are at stake, to ensure that you're doing the right thing.

Yesterday we as members of this House were subject to committee debate on Bill 40 and to sitting in this House till 4:45 in the morning, with a record number of amendments brought in by the government on a single bill that will not be beaten for many years. Unbelievable!

[ Page 12729 ]

In a world that starts to measure people's success by the number of records they break, as statistics and number crunching become our goal...

An Hon. Member: A new record for Guinness.

F. Gingell: ...to try and get in the Guinness Book of World Records for the greatest number of amendments to your own bill, because it's badly written and badly thought out.... That is one record I would think this government would try to avoid.

[4:00]

There are occasions when delay is the right thing to do. Let's please listen to everybody, think this whole thing through, find out where the problems are and deal with it within a reasonably short period of time.

An Hon. Member: The Liberals' five-year plan.

F. Gingell: There is a solution here. Instead of dealing with hastily drawn-up legislation that hasn't been thought through and that doesn't recognize people's right to property in the way I know all of us believe it should, we should send this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. That's what that committee is set up to do. It is set up to look at and deal with proposals that will affect the people of British Columbia. And how often does it sit? Virtually never.

The select standing committees that this NDP government talked about when they were in opposition -- they suggested that by the use of those committees we would make this Legislature and parliament a more meaningful and productive place -- have been ignored by them. Here is an opportunity for the member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- but really from Delta or Ladner -- to have some real input and to try to make this into a piece of legislation that will work. It bothers me that this whole thing has been cobbled together. Now, that's a good term to use: cobbled together.

This is the government which proposed that forest workers should go into the shoe repair business. That's where the money is; that's where the proposals are. They have taken the art of cobbling to heart and have cobbled together this legislation, which has its weaknesses, and it deals with a terribly important subject. So I really do believe that this is one occasion where delay would be wise.

On behalf of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, I would therefore move that the motion for second reading of Bill 56 be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting the following: "Bill 56 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

I would now like to briefly speak to the amendment. From the amount of time that has been spent in developing this bill, the amount of time since the announcements and changed announcements, since the CORE report was tabled, since the Premier's announcements, since they backed down on that and came forward with new proposals, one knows there simply hasn't been enough time. There simply has not been enough time for this government to think through all the consequences of the actions they are taking.

As I mentioned earlier, that shows up in this new world record for the number of amendments to their own piece of legislation. I was under the impression that the only world records being made this year are by, I believe, a Jamaican cricketer called Mr. Lara, who is having unbelievable success. But our Minister of Forests, the member for....

An Hon. Member: Saanich South.

F. Gingell: That was one I happen to know. He's north, and you're going south.

I am surprised that the minister wants to make these records. From his years at university, having had the opportunity to mould young minds, to encourage them to think and to look at all of the options, to look before they leap, to consider everything and come to carefully thought-out decisions, particularly when you're dealing with matters that are of such import, I am sure he knows that he doesn't take his own advice.

Surely the NDP backbenchers, who come from all parts of this province, would have the opportunity to have some input into the way in which this piece of legislation is being crafted.

Because my voice is getting tired trying to speak over all the catcalls coming from across the House, I will leave with this one thought. This really is the right occasion to delay and think again. Let's work together to create the right legislation and the right set of rules that will work for all British Columbians and do the things that we all want. We want to protect our environment, we want to protect jobs, and we want to protect families all over this province.

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I want to bring to the attention of the House that I am the first woman to stand in debate today. I would extend to my -- as the government members would say -- sisters in the House that they might want to get their comments on record. I've been following the debate and the debate that went until five in the morning last night. In both instances, it's been sadly lacking in the female gender. So I stand as the first woman today.

I'm standing in opposition to the amendment. I'm also standing here in absolute shock that for the first time in this session we actually have the Liberals in the House with some presence in debate, and they're standing up against what is probably the first really good piece of legislation the government has brought in. They've decided to take Bill 56 as the bill on which they're going to do the Liberals' last stand. Maybe they've been watching the polls of the political parties and have decided they have to do something. So they're going to ride off on their horse on this one -- in the wrong direction. This Forest Land Reserve Act is in fact 30 or 40 years overdue.

It's rather amazing that in the eleventh hour of a session, when we have to get through committee stage of Bill 40, which is something that needs adequate scrutiny, and when we were up until five in morning -- which I think is shameful.... Having debates on important legislation lasting until five in the morning is no way to run a government. We want to have that bill back on the floor as early as possible so that we can have more of our wits about us rather than debating overnight, which is what we're likely to do when the Liberals keep introducing amendments to second reading.

The interesting thing about second reading amendments is that all we can do is rehash the principle of the bill that may have been brought up earlier in the debate by the same members of the caucus. Ironically enough, in the last

[ Page 12730 ]

general election, the Liberal Party ran on a platform of setting aside forest lands in a working forest.

The speech by the member for Nelson-Creston was a very good speech. I watched it at home, and I thought he made some very good points. It reminded me that back in 1990 I heard the member....

D. Jarvis: When you were a member of the NDP.

J. Tyabji: Exactly. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour is saying it was when I was with the NDP. It's true. For a few months in 1990, I joined the NDP, before realizing.... No, don't clap, because I fled for my life when I realized the NDP's strong ties to the unions. But what I was going to say....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: It's interesting, because in 1990 the very progressive provincial Liberal leader, a resource economist, had been abandoned. Some of his progressive policies, one of which was to set aside the forest lands in a working forest, had led to the power brokers in the provincial Liberal Party withdrawing their support. I was so disgusted with the Liberal Party, I even went to the NDP.

While I was there, I heard the member for Nelson-Creston give a very good speech, and his speech today reminded me of that. It was interesting, because -- other than in some of the speeches I'm hearing from the NDP and from the leader of the Alliance, who was then the Liberal leader -- progressive forest policy had not been coming out in B.C. The forest land reserve is long overdue. The present leader of the Alliance took over the Liberal leadership in 1987.

When in that speech he said he was extremely frustrated as a resource economist with how inefficiently the government was operating the forest lands and called for a working forest, that twigged some of the progressive thinkers in the party to say: "Yes, the time has come."

Never have I seen such a persuasive argument for leaving the Liberal Party and sitting as a member of the Alliance than the debate we're witnessing today, with the hoist motions coming forward from the Liberal Party. It's a disgrace. I can stand here proudly and say I have the common sense to know good legislation when it comes forward. Now, how it will break down in committee stage....

When we move to committee stage of Bill 56, we can talk about some of the potential difficulties when we look at the history of the agricultural land reserve and the possible politicizing of the forest land reserve, we will, I hope, have the minister's reassurances on the machinery he will put in place to prevent that from happening.

But having said that, even though we're in the eleventh hour, we recognize that if we didn't pass the Forest Land Reserve Act now and in this session, we would have a terrible time over the summer and, no doubt, into the fall. If we didn't have a fall session, it would be a year of forestry practices on private and public land independent of the forest land reserve. That would leave us in a terrible situation, because some of the potential damage might last for decades.

Having said that, I'm speaking very strongly against this amendment. I would urge and plead with the Liberals to go back to their roots and back to the roots that elected them, back to the very policies that elected them....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying they have root rot. I'll leave that for the minister to bring up in debate.

It's unfortunate that the Liberals have left their roots so dramatically that they can't even see a piece of legislation -- one of the few from the government brought forward this session

-- that is in line with the progressive policies that got Liberals elected in this province in 1991 and with some of the policies that I stand strongly for, as a member of the Alliance.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise to support this reasoned amendment to Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act. I've been following carefully the remarks of the members opposite and of all political parties with respect to this Forest Land Reserve Act, and there seems to be an implied assumption here that we are creating a forest land reserve that is immune from alienation; we've heard it said repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is that we sat up in this assembly until 5 a.m. this morning, talking about provisions of Bill 40 which would in fact alienate the forest land reserve.

The district manager has the power to set aside sensitive areas on both public and private land. Are they subject to a review by the Forest Land Commission? No. The landscape zones that are set up by regional managers -- are they subject to review by the commission before they're alienated? No. The Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the Ministry of Environment will have the power in this province to set aside a recreation site that can come right out of the forest land reserve. Is there any provision in this act for the commission to take a stand there? No, hon.

Speaker. There is absolutely no protection -- and I repeat it: no protection -- for the working forest in Bill 56.

[4:15]

Twenty thousand forest workers gathered on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly, near the opening of this session, to point that out to every member of the assembly. I believe they even pointed it out to the members for Okanagan East and for Powell

River-Sunshine Coast. I'm baffled, because last night the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast stood up in this assembly and debated the potential alienation of the forest land base of the working forest under the Forest Practices Code, and he has not put two and two together. What are we protecting with Bill 56? We are saying that if you have private land in the province of British Columbia, you will now have to apply to a commission to get it out. Oh, the Crown can move in and they can alienate the land all they want to, and that's perfectly acceptable under Bill 56.

But a private land reserve is what's being regulated under Bill 56, and there is absolutely no protection for a single forestry worker in the province. That's reality. There is no protection -- none.

It's a complete and utter sham, this particular bill. It sets up a commission supposedly designed to protect forest land, and all it does is require a commission to sit in judgment on those that might want to have their private land taken out of what would be known as a forest designation. There is absolutely no protection from the district manager or the Ministry of Environment. There is no protection now from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They can come and ravage the working forest at will, and this bill will not have a shred of impact on those alienations of the forest land base.

[ Page 12731 ]

It's a complete and utter sham. There's no other explanation for this bill. To have people on that side of the House stand up and suggest that this bill protects the working forests is an insult to the intelligence of every forest worker in the province. They know exactly what the working forest is, even if members opposite, some of whom represent forest-dependent ridings, apparently don't seem to know. It's appalling ignorance -- absolutely appalling.

This bill will not protect the working forest from the largest single alienation that is likely to occur in the next fiscal year, and that is a decision by this government -- now three separate ministries -- to alienate the working forest land base in British Columbia. There is not a shred of protection. And I defy that minister, this member and any of the others who have risen to support this bill to provide one shred of evidence that the working forest in British Columbia is protected.

All this bill has done is draw another circle, and the government likes to draw them all the time. They do one for CORE, they do one for the protected areas strategy, and they've now got the ability under the Forest Practices Code to draw all kinds of little circles for interpretative zones and special sensitive zones and landscape zones right through the middle of this act. That's how big a hole there is with respect to this particular legislation.

So obviously the people who rely on the working forest in British Columbia deserve the opportunity over the next six months to scrutinize this bill and make some of these observations, some of these points, to the members in this assembly who have apparently not grasped what the definition of a working forest is in the province.

A working forest, if you go to Port McNeill or Prince George, is pretty basic. It's a cutblock that is filed with the Ministry of Forests that sustains jobs, livelihoods and communities in this province. That's what a working forest is, and I remind the members opposite that if we were to pass this bill tomorrow, the district manager could move into this new zone and decide that an area was a special interpretive zone, and out it would come. We're setting up a forest land reserve, but what are we reserving? What are we reserving if the district manager can come in and decide that a portion of it isn't going to be available for harvest any longer?

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Well, the fact of the matter is that under Bill 40, which we debated last night, the ministry has the power to make those kind of designations.

Does this forest land reserve protect the holder of a licence from the effects of CORE? Would CORE alienate the forest land base under this? Of course it would. Would the government's designation of protected areas strategy -- the parks and wilderness proposal -- alienate the forest land reserve? Yes, it would.

We have drawn a shadow circle with this bill; that's all we've done. We've decided that we're going to create this warm and fuzzy special forest land reserve which has absolutely no import other than to require private land holders to go before a commission to get their land redesignated. That's the only purpose of this bill -- it's designed to punish 20 or so large companies on Vancouver Island, which the government quite correctly feels need to be punished. They haven't had the courage to stand up in this debate and say that. But fine, that's public policy. If that's their approach, fine.

Have the courage to stand up and say that you don't believe that MacMillan Bloedel or Fletcher Challenge or any of the other large companies in this province should own private land which has the potential to be alienated. Stand up and say it.

But they haven't offered that kind of assessment. A totally dishonest assessment is what they've offered. They are saying to the working men and women in this province, who could lose their jobs in record numbers: "Hallelujah! We have protected your working forest." It just ain't so. It isn't so under this bill.

It really saddens me when members opposite stand up and talk about principles in this bill, and about the principles they've fought for. I'm telling this assembly today that there are more principles out in the working forests of British Columbia and on the part of the people who go to work every day to earn their living from the land base than I've seen in this assembly in the three months that I've been here. There's more principle in those 20,000 people who gathered on the lawns of the Legislature. Would those 20,000 people be satisfied with this forest land reserve?

Would they then go back to their homes throughout the province and say: "My God, the government has protected our jobs and our livelihoods in the province of British Columbia with this bill"? Would they leave satisfied if the government had presented this gobbledegook to them on the steps of the Legislative Assembly?

They'd have seen this bill for the sham that it is, and they'd see this government for the dishonest government that it is. They would recognize that you can draw up all the fancy legislation in the world and give it designations like "forest land reserve," but the reality in the province of British Columbia today is that the Crown can move in and alienate the working forest without one shred of reference to this bill. That's the kind of forest policy we've seen from this government -- dishonest. That's what it is.

We've seen a government that's willing to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money to push a vision for Vancouver Island. We've seen a government set up 23 parks on Vancouver Island without a single boundary attached to them and suggest to us that that is prudent and responsible land use. Is it any wonder that the forest-dependent workers in this province do not trust a word the government says, when they're dealing with these kinds of fundamental dishonesties?

They are being told by this minister and this Premier and this Employment and Investment minister that we have protected their jobs with a working forest preservation act, when in fact it doesn't protect anything. What are they to believe?

The government has challenged the opposition to go to the polls on forest policy. I have no hesitation in going to the polls on

an act like this. I have no hesitation in telling the working men and women of British Columbia that this bill is a paper tiger and does not provide one shred of additional protection for the jobs that are dependent on standing timber. I have no hesitation in doing that, because it's a fundamentally dishonest bill.

It absolutely amazes me that member after member of this assembly, from every political party, has stood and bought the government's line on Bill 56 that the workers in the province of British Columbia now have their own forest land reserve: "The timber that's inside that little circle we've drawn will never be alienated, because we have prevented the private land holders from building

[ Page 12732 ]

shopping centres or doing whatever else those nasty companies may want to do with their private land."

It appalls me and it saddens me that where the forest workers in British Columbia, including those in the constituency of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.... They're certainly not in Saanich South; I don't believe too many actually live in that member's riding. It's important for us to note that these forest-dependent communities and the workers know exactly how much protection they have from this government. They know that they have virtually no protection under the current provisions of Bill 56.

For that reason alone, this bill, which has an opportunity to really do something to protect jobs and the land base for forestry in British Columbia, needs to go to a select standing committee so it can be gutted and rewritten. I guarantee you that if that bill went to a select standing committee, we wouldn't come back with 80 amendments on the same night that it was introduced in this assembly.

I have no hesitation in supporting the reasoned amendment on second reading. It's vital that this bill, which has the potential to be taken out and reviewed with those

forest-dependent communities and workers who are affected by these decisions.... Let's consult them, for a change. When was the last time they had any input? They have to come down here to the lawns with placards and signs. That's the only input this government has offered them.

I invite the members opposite to support this reasoned amendment. Give it to a select standing committee, take it out on the road, go over the bill clause by clause with the workers in Port McNeill and Prince George, and have them tell us how much protection they think is inherent in Bill 56. How much real protection is there? Well, I'll tell this minister that they will tell these members how much protection there is, because the forest workers of this province understand what a working forest is, even if this minister and these members opposite have no idea.

H. Giesbrecht: After listening to that, I couldn't resist making the observation that you have just witnessed what sleep deprivation can do to you, and it's obvious that some are more susceptible to sleep deprivation than others.

About five hours ago I was listening to the opposition comments, and they were that this was really not a bad idea, but that we needed to consult more with the public and we needed to go out there and get the public onside. Now, imagine this: it's five hours later, and the same member is saying that the bill isn't strong enough. I have some difficulty with that line of reasoning.

The comment has often been made by the official opposition that the people need to have their say on this. The member for Delta South said the idea had been cobbled together. It's like they have this notion that maybe Bill 56 arose out of some dream a week ago. That's really not the case. There have been all kinds of consultations about the Forest Practices Code in the last little while, and people have consistently said they want a designated managed forest.

By repeated amendments and delays we are being told that, while we heard the message that came back from those consultations, we're now supposed to go back and say: "Do you really want this now, after you told us that's what you wanted in the first place?" I'd say that would be nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

[4:30]

The public has been consistently asking for some certainty in the forest industry in terms of where the managed forest will be. There have been protected areas strategies to identify those areas that are to be set aside, and there are discussions about land claims. But the other side of the coin is that forest lands are to be designated so that everybody knows the rules and everybody can then tell what sort of viable industry we'll have in the future. An awful lot of issues have threatened forest companies and workers over the years, and access to wood is certainly one of them.

If we can't set aside a forest land reserve, then that access will continue to be threatened. They have been asking for certainty, and I am confident that this bill is a very good start down that road.

The interesting thing -- and it's been mentioned before -- is that on April 15 the member for Surrey-White Rock said in the newspaper that "the investment is great." He was talking about the forest renewal plan. He added that there should be a guarantee of land designated as a "working forest zone." What happened from April 15 to now that we suddenly have to listen to this diatribe from the same member -- that suddenly this isn't strong enough five hours after it was pretty good, but we have to consult...?

Perhaps I could suggest that the member may have received his walking papers or his marching orders from the Leader of the Official Opposition. But you still have to wonder: why the change? What happened in that short time? You'd almost think that he'd received thousands of letters and phone calls from people saying: "No, we don't want this." I've repeatedly had calls and comments from people that say yes, they do; this is a good idea. But the hon. member has received thousands of calls saying: "No, we don't want this. We don't want a forest land reserve right now.

Wait six months, wait a year, wait indefinitely, and maybe the problem will go away."

This is excellent legislation. It's a reaction to a need that was expressed in the consultations on the Forest Practices Code, and I think it should be recognized for that. The demand for more delays, the demand for referrals, is nothing more than cheap politics at its worst and shortsightedness at its best. We should get on with it, and I challenge the members opposite who have aspirations in my constituency in the next election to vote against this bill.

M. Farnworth: I've listened to a dead-stump opposition over the last few hours as they've been trying first to hoist and now to delay further a piece of legislation that is the final plank in a platform this government put forward to end the war in the woods, to secure a future for the forest communities of this province, to secure a future for the forest workers of this province and to secure the long-term future of the markets of this province, upon which our economic future and our economic destiny depend. And what have we heard? We have heard nothing but negative criticism from the opposition.

When the rest of the province -- whether it's been the forest companies, the forest unions or the environmental community -- have been coming together in praising this government and in working with this government to achieve a solution to a crisis that has been brewing in the forest industry and in the forest communities over the last few years, this opposition has been floundering around because of a lack of policy.

And now at this late hour they have decided that it's an issue that's important to the province, to the forest communities, to the environmental groups and to the forest companies that have been working with the government to try to do something. They have suddenly

[ Page 12733 ]

decided they had better do something. But heaven forbid that they could possibly support a commonsense program like the one this government has put forward.

No, what they want is six months' delay, six months' uncertainty in our markets, six months' uncertainty in the forest communities on Vancouver Island and six more months of battles between preservationists and loggers. That's what they want, so they can get their act together and find out what the forest industry truly means to this province.

I think it's sad when we have an opposition that, when you mention the forests in this province and how important they are, and when you think of things like the hemlock and how much it contributes to the economy, and the aspen in the north Peace River area.... What do they think of when they hear the names hemlock and aspen? They think of ski resorts. That's their idea of forest policy.

We have an opposition that thinks a fir tree is a place you hang a mink coat. That's the depth of their policy. They think of mountain ash as what's left over after a forest fire. We have an opposition leader who thinks arbutus is a street in Vancouver. He doesn't seem to understand that what's important in this province is the forests, which are the backbone of our provincial economy. What's also important is the effort this government has made in bringing forward legislation to secure our long-term future.

C. Tanner: And wiping out 3,000 jobs.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member talks about wiping out jobs, and he talks about who is supporting us. Well, Peter Bentley supported us on forest renewal, and the IWA has come out in support of our forest plans. Up and down the island and throughout this province people are seeing that this government has a plan and a vision for where we need to be going, and they're willing to come together to give that plan an opportunity to work. This piece of legislation is vital to that plan. Instead of getting on board with other responsible opposition members, who put the province's interests first instead of their own

self-interests, this opposition wants to delay. That is unacceptable, and it shows the lack of initiative and a lack of policy work by that opposition.

An Hon. Member: Call an election, and you'll find out.

M. Farnworth: When the time comes, we will call an election, and our forest policies will be front and centre of not only an economic program but also an environmental program, and they will show the people of this province the difference between a government that cares about forest workers, forest communities and the environment and an opposition that, as I said before, thinks a fir tree is a place to hang a mink coat.

G. Wilson: I don't intend to speak for very long. I only do so because the member for Surrey-White Rock mentioned me in the context of his remarks, and I think it important that we clarify some of the commentary that came from that member in relation to what I was saying when speaking against the first amendment.

Before I do that, I hear an awful lot of banter and commentary about calling an election now. There's a lot of bravado going on. I would think that the members of the Liberal opposition might want to think back to the last election before they start thinking too far ahead to the next one, with respect to their chances. I think it's important that no member of this Legislative Assembly should take for granted the interests of the people of the province or how those people will vote.

It's entirely up to the people to make up their minds, and I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest somehow that it's a fait accompli here, particularly in light of how some of those members managed to get their seat in the first place.

Having said that, let me say that there is no pretence whatsoever -- and neither should there be -- that Bill 56 will set aside intractable lands that can't be used for anything else and can't be removed in any way. If we're going to set aside a working forest, we have to acknowledge that within those lands in which forest practices are going to be governed and managed, there will be watersheds, streams, areas that are sensitive in nature, marshlands, wetlands and all kinds of habitat lands that have to be protected.

I find it incredible that in 1994 an official opposition Forests critic would stand up and say that we should somehow alienate lands in which there is going to be no provision whatsoever for forest practices that would protect watersheds, streams, marshlands and habitat. Good grief, where have these people been?

The public, including those people involved in the forest industry -- and, in fact, I would argue, especially those involved in the forest industry, because they have as great an interest, if not greater, in proper, adequate and sound land management as anybody else -- have an interest in making sure that in a provision for an established forest zone, practices that will be permitted in those zones take into account the sensitivity and nature of the kind of land that is being undertaken through harvesting.

That's all this bill says. There is no pretence that we are trying to set it aside and make it intractable in the sense that once it is set aside, there can be no provision for joint stewardship. There is no pretence that we are going to set it aside so that local communities don't have some input or say or control. That's desirable. That's what we're fighting to achieve: to have greater local community input into the management of lands that surround them.

So I find it bizarre, especially in light of the fact that I was sitting with the member for Surrey-White Rock until 5 o'clock in the morning debating Bill 40, which deals with forest practices codes that are trying to put in place the balance needed for sound forest practices that will be manageable, economic and safe for the workers and will protect the environment, that there is no acknowledgement that the code has to apply to a zoned area of land within which forest practices will be given priority. That is what this bill says.

I think it is misleading in the extreme for the member for Surrey-White Rock to suggest that this bill pretends to set aside a working forest in which there is going to be unlimited ability for harvest and for extraction, that there cannot be local management or control and that there can't be a code that is going to regulate how those practices are going to be put forward. It doesn't say that, and I don't think it should say that. That's how forestry operated in the 1920s and 1930s in the province of British Columbia.

Every gyppo with a chainsaw and a steam tractor could go in there, drag out logs and try to sell them. It was the heyday of gyppo logging. After that, we moved to the heyday of large multinational corporate logging and the ownership of large tracts of private land.

Nobody is saying that the multinational interest in this province is not a vital, important component in our

[ Page 12734 ]

economy -- at least I don't hear anybody saying that. What is being said, however, by people in forest communities right up and down the coast and the interior forest sector -- two quite different forests in this province -- is that they want to have greater control and say over how their communities can benefit from the resources that are within their communities' bounds. That is what they are saying. They are saying that they need to have some provision for land zoning established that is going to give them an opportunity to recognize that certain forest practices will apply within those zones.

We have to acknowledge that when we put application of those practices into place, we are going to look after the community watersheds, streams, marshlands and wetlands, and the areas in which special habitat and sensitive areas need to be protected. That is a sensible, proper way to proceed. Bill 56 initiates the lines on the maps that define where that land is going to be.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that the member for Okanagan East is absolutely correct. That was a major plank in the Liberal Party platform. It was taken to the people of the province of British Columbia and put forward by myself as their leader in a televised debate that tended to move us from 7 percent of the poll to 33 percent and official opposition status. It was a major plank, because it was something that people throughout this province were saying was needed.

[4:45]

It is absolutely misleading for any member in this House to confuse the intent of Bill 40. I have problems with some of the material in Bill 40, and I sat here until 5 o'clock this morning trying to get the minister to see my point of view on a whole series of issues. But the Forest Practices Code is not what's at issue with Bill 56. Bill 56 is a question of land designation and of giving provision within that land designation for certain factors to occur. It is a provision with respect to private land holdings. I need to explore some of that in committee stage, because I have some hesitation with the wording on some of that. We need to look at it.

Nobody is saying that this is a perfect bill. In fact, I said it wasn't perfect, but it's better than not doing anything at all. Given the interests that are out there that want to go out and involve themselves in unrestricted harvest, it would be damaging if we were to delay passage of Bill 56. What we need to do now is give swift passage to this bill so we can get that bill out to the communities and get that kind of consultative process going with respect to the fine detail on the management of these zones.

We can include the forest industries -- not just the majors, but all of the small mill operators, the people involved in small business programs and other people whose livelihood is dependent -- because in so many communities the economy is tangential to the forest industry.

We have to do something positive for the people of this province for a change. The people constantly hear how bad the situation is and how impossible it is to do anything correctly. As I was travelling in my riding the other day, somebody came up to me and said: "Mr. Wilson, is there ever a government anywhere that can ever do anything right?" The people out there have the feeling that nothing we do is right. It's time that we recognized that a move toward an integrated land management strategy, a proper inventory of resource and a recognition of a

limits-to-growth economy in this province is the right move. To the extent that Bill 56 is step one along that path, we can support it. I think we need to stop playing politics with it and get the thing passed.

A. Warnke: Many points that have been raised in this debate do not demand much expansion or, certainly, reiteration. Nonetheless, when one takes a look at Bill 56, based on what has occurred and on some of the presentations in this bill, which is supposedly the forest package, one wonders whether there will be an attempt to break the record held by Bill 40: introducing

80-plus amendments, as the member for Delta South pointed out. Actually, it's not a good comment. If it takes more than 80 amendments -- a record, essentially, and we haven't even finished Bill 40 -- it indicates that this government has not thought through its legislation in Bill 40. If that's possible in Bill 40, it's darned possible that this government has not thought through the legislation in Bill 56, either.

Oh, laugh if you will. When this government introduces bills and it hasn't got a clue what it's doing in terms of legislation, where do you think it is going? I'll tell you where this government is going. This government is going to be swept into the dustbin of history. It will be gone. And why? Because this government has failed to listen to some of the fundamental issues and problems facing this province.

I am also quite surprised that rather than listening to the member for Surrey-White Rock, who raised some very telling and important points and had the courage to actually suggest that maybe something is wrong with regard to the forest policy, their only response is to say that somehow they can ignore some of the caution raised by that member. I have not heard one government member respond to the most recent comments by the member for Surrey-White Rock and outline what the problems are -- if in fact there are any -- with his presentation. I haven't heard one -- not one.

As that hon. member pointed out, it turns out that the forest land reserve is not a reserve at all. The compilation of bills as put forward by the Minister of Forests and other members is not well thought out at all. In fact -- and I mentioned this in my last speech with regard to Bill 56 -- I still see a tone of attack on the forest industry, not a fundamental understanding of where we're going in the forest industry.

At the same time, members of the government claimed that this bill was profound: "This bill is going to have a tremendous impact on the future of British Columbia." If it's going to have a profound impact, it better have everything in order. The set of bills better be properly in place. It better not bring in -- as in the case of Bill 40, which we haven't even completed at committee stage -- a bunch of amendments. It's not just a few amendments, not just dozens, but dozens and dozens and scores and scores of amendments, and it's still not finished. What a way to run a government! What a