1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 18
[ Page 10365 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm privileged today to introduce, first of all, a couple of people working for the ministry, Mr. Jim Green and Monica Hay. In addition to that, with them in the gallery are two people from the downtown east side who have been working with the government on the community banking initiative, Ken Lyotier and Amalia Dorigoni. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.
DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS KILLED OR INJURED ON THE JOB
Hon. D. Miller: I would like to bring to the attention of the House today that April 28 was proclaimed a Day of Mourning for Workers Killed or Injured on the Job last year in British Columbia. I know I speak for all members of the House when I say we mourn the 169 workers killed during 1993. Their deaths are a tragic loss for their families, friends, co-workers, employers and the entire community. Indeed, the cost to workers and our economy was staggering last year: 3,700 workers were permanently disabled; 195,170 new injuries were reported to the Workers' Compensation Board; 75,000 people took time off work because of their injuries; and 3.2 million days were lost because of workplace injuries, not including fatalities. Each month the Workers' Compensation Board issues 26,000 cheques totalling more than $12 million. This money goes to workers who have suffered permanent disabilities or to survivors of those who have died as a result of industrial disease or fatal workplace accidents.
These are hard numbers, but accidents in the workplace are a harder reality for the families involved. Behind each of those statistics is a real person and a family whose personal reality has been altered by an injury or a disease. I'm sure all members would agree that the best way to pay tribute to these workers is to improve safety conditions in British Columbia workplaces, upgrade compensation delivery and enhance services to workers who suffer workplace injuries.
I would like to report the significant gains made in these areas over the past year. This government has extended workers' compensation services to cover virtually all workers and employers in the province, which is an addition of some 150,000 workers and 18,000 employers who previously had no protection. Universal coverage is a fundamental change to B.C.'s compensation system. It keeps one of the fundamental labour laws of the province in sync with the changing workplace.
In the past year we have also eliminated gender discrimination from survivor benefits. Spouses of workers killed in the workplace are no longer cut from benefits if they remarry or form new common-law relationships. An extensive regulation review has also been undertaken. As a result, new regulations are in place to protect British Columbians from violence in the workplace.
We have also introduced regulations concerning improved safety in the use of industrial chemicals. In the past year we have established three workers' adviser offices in regional centres around the province: in Victoria, Kamloops and Nanaimo. These offices meet a real need of injured workers by providing them with independent information and advice about the workers' compensation system. Advisers also hold training seminars to help workers understand their rights and responsibilities under the Workers Compensation Act.
There are some changes coming up. On this day of mourning I would like to pay tribute to workers killed or injured on the job by telling members about an improvement to the Workers Compensation Act. This change will benefit workers and their dependents who make occupational disease claims. It will allow the Workers' Compensation Board to consider full compensation for workers or their dependents who make late applications for occupational disease claims. Workers or their families who make occupational disease claims within three years after they become aware of a link between the disease and the workplace will soon be eligible for full benefits. This change will benefit workers who become ill or disabled but do not find out that their disease was caused by something in the workplace until years later. In such cases, scientific or medical evidence may not have been available to link the disease to the workplace.
I will be introducing a bill in the coming weeks to correct this situation and ensure that all workers making occupational disease claims are considered for full benefits. The upcoming legislation will also improve compensation and rehabilitation of workers who move to and from another province. It will allow the Workers' Compensation Board to enter into agreements with boards in other provinces.
Although we have made progress in reviewing and updating our safety regulations in the past year, there is still a significant amount of work ahead of us. The figures I read at the outset are clearly unacceptable to British Columbians, and we all have an obligation to try to improve that. This government will continue to make improvements to the system and will work towards reducing the number of workplace accidents and cutting down the amount of occupational disease in the workplace.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the third year for marking this day and the third year that I have had an opportunity to stand in the House and reply, first to the former minister and now to this minister. I know the House is going to be observing a minute of silence at about 11 o'clock today in respect for those workers who have been injured or killed in British Columbia. It is important that we respect the injured workers and their families.
I wanted to be non-political about this, but as I heard more of what the minister had to say, I must tell this House that I became angrier and angrier. It has been almost three years since this party took its position in government. The ability of injured workers in this province to get compensation in a timely manner, to be treated with respect and to have their cases heard in a fair manner has gone downhill, downhill, downhill.
Day in and day out I know that every member in this House gets calls in their constituency offices from injured workers. I can tell you that if members in this House changed places with their constituency assistants for one day, and their constituency assistants had to sit in this chamber and make the rules, the WCB would be dealt with that day, because they hear the stories. They hear from the people who are hanging by a thread because they have been waiting for months to get some compensation for injuries they sustained in trying to build the economy of this province.
People's marriages, families and lives are falling apart. They are losing their homes. They're being told by the people at WCB to go on welfare. I'm just outraged that the minister would stand up in the House and talk about the wonderful
[ Page 10366 ]
things his party has done for the workers of British Columbia when all they have done is expand coverage to include a bunch of other people, and those injured workers are not going to be dealt with properly.
[10:15]
It's time the government stopped pretending that they're dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board and that they're actually speaking for injured workers in this province. It's time they stopped pretending that they're speaking on behalf of the workers at the WCB, who are overloaded. This government's answer to the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the backlog in cases, when people's lives are falling apart, is to get more storage space for the files.
Next year, when that minister stands up or another minister stands in his place, I hope that the injured workers of this province will be in better shape than they are today. What's going on at the Workers' Compensation Board is disgraceful. It's disgraceful the way workers are being treated in this province. This government hasn't made things one bit better; it has made them worse. They get worse each day and each year. If nothing changes in the next year, that minister would be ashamed to stand in this House and make the kind of statement he made today.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?
G. Wilson: To ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave not granted.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I call the wrap-up of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
D. Mitchell: I intend to take a brief moment to refer to the Consumer Services section of the ministry's estimates. I think the minister actually did a good job in attempting to defend the Consumer Services component of her new portfolio. I would like to say, however, that I for one am hoping that the minister will take this portion of her responsibility extremely seriously when it comes to defending the rights of British Columbians as consumers.
We talked a bit about consumer arbitration, a somewhat new but valuable idea which is going to be taking consumer complaints about manufacturers' products, whether they be automobiles or what have you -- any consumer item that's purchased -- out of the court system. We don't want an Ontario system or the Canadian automobile manufacturers' arbitration system simply foisted on British Columbia. If I can take this one opportunity to reinforce that message with the minister, I hope she understands that we don't want Ontario imperialism. We want a made-in-B.C. program that will defend the rights of British Columbia consumers. Also, I note the concerns raised by consumer associations that we need consumer representation on any board. We don't want secrecy. We want full and open arbitration, and we want some guidelines for arbitrators as well.
After those few comments, I'd like to compliment the minister. I think she attempted to do a good job defending the Consumer Services portion of her estimates. I ask her to take these concerns seriously. We want arbitration for British Columbia consumers, but we don't want the Ontario model foisted upon us.
The Speaker: I'll recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast until the red light comes on.
G. Wilson: I want to make a brief comment with respect to the minister's responses to the matter of rental housing -- and in particular the VLC. I think it's important that there be a full and thorough review by government -- as is indeed being done by this ministry -- with respect to the government's involvement in the provision of housing and subsidies -- provided either through a mortgage buy-down process, in terms of interest buy-down, or through any organization or group involved in the provision of low-income rental housing. I hope, through these estimates.... We understand now that the government is taking a very close look at the provision of dollars to private companies that seek to make profit through the provision of housing.
As we look at the Woodward's redevelopment and some other East Vancouver developments proposed for this and next year, I hope that this government will make sure that a performance bond is put in place and that a performance review is made prior to granting any company additional dollars, so we can make sure that those companies which are beneficiaries of public money have a track record showing they complete projects that they commence.
V. Anderson: I wish to thank the minister for her responses during estimates. I'm sorry, though, that she was constrained by future promises, because we had promises and promises about what was coming and an indication that many committees were meeting. Until those committees had met and made their decisions, she would not be able to tell us what was forthcoming, particularly through B.C. 21. It leaves us in a quandary about the future, which we had hoped the estimates would enable us to understand.
Of the four sections of the particular presentation the minister made to us, one was management services and coordination of cooperatives. Once we got to the FTEs, we finally were able to sort out that there were 39 employees in the management section and that the cooperative section had only one employee, even though it's very much in the title of the undertaking. We understand the minister is very interested in and excited about the cooperative direction as well as management services. We are not quite sure how the employee portion of that goes with her excitement.
In the housing program, under grants, we are able to understand that basically there is no change or improvement in the budget this year. If there is a change, it will come in B.C. 21 expenditures, which the minister was not able to confide to us. That leaves some uncertainty for those in the province who are concerned with an improvement in housing.
In recreation programs, again, we find that while in the housing programs there are persons at work -- which gives an indication of the balance -- 39 are in management, 19 are in housing programs and eight are in recreation programs. It's interesting that in the recreation programs, the majority is grants and contributions to community groups. That's what community groups would wish. But in the overall management of this budget of approximately $100 million, there's $20 million in operating costs in the four sections and $80 million in grants, so that there's a high proportion of administration costs against the high proportion of that money which goes directly to the community.
[ Page 10367 ]
In Consumer Services, we find that the budget has increased from $8 million to $12 million, a sizable increase. Of the 175 personnel at work in the four divisions of this new ministry, 103 of them, by far the majority, are in Consumer Services. When we look at the mandate for this ministry, it talks about grants and contributions. We would assume there would be a lot of community involvement in Consumer Services, but there is only $15,000 in grants or contributions -- in effect, nothing at all. It wouldn't even pay the postage for getting the services out to the communities. I'm surprised that all but $15,000 of the $12 million is tied up in salaries and administration costs rather than involvement of people, volunteers and others within the community, except through their own private agencies.
So the minister has a great deal of enthusiasm for the Housing ministry and promises a great deal in the future. But I'm concerned that as we look at the budget and are able to get the estimate information itself, we're not able to secure the kind of hope or promise that she has projected -- until, hopefully, her other "statements" come down the line.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I thank the members of the opposition for their comments.
The estimates have been a very good process, as we had an opportunity to canvass a number of significant issues that are the responsibility of this ministry. The leadership that has been shown by the Premier, in establishing for the first time in British Columbia a ministry responsible for developing a housing strategy, is reflected not only in my enthusiasm but in the enthusiasm of people around this province. Unfortunately, at a time when we see the federal Liberal government carrying out the Tory agenda of abolishing a housing strategy, for the first time since World War II we no longer have a national housing strategy. The opportunity that it provides for us, with the Premier's leadership, to establish a housing strategy that makes sense in communities throughout this province is one that we embrace. While the member from the Liberal opposition indicates that they are unable to share many of the good-news announcements we will be making in the next month or so, I'm sure that he and the Liberals in this House will embrace those announcements and support community groups that are addressing their housing needs.
Let me talk a bit about that housing strategy. In the last couple of weeks we had a very good announcement around homeless and homeless-at-risk initiatives: some $8.9 million to community groups that have invested in very innovative projects, meeting the needs of individuals that have very few options and who cannot participate in the marketplace to address their very basic housing and shelter needs. That is only one of the many projects that we will be announcing, including the call for tenders at the end of June.
I want to take the opportunity to talk about the other important aspect of our ministerial responsibility, and that is consumer protection. The focus of our ministry has been around equity and access, in order to include those who have not traditionally been at government tables in the past, and the consumer protection area is no different. Consumer protection in this province has been ignored for too long. The ministry and its resources have not been supported by previous governments. This government's commitment in the last couple of years to legislative changes, to strengthening our support of communities and to providing leadership is being noted not only in the province but across Canada.
The member referred to the vehicle arbitration process. I can assure the member that we are providing the kind of leadership he is calling for. CAMVAP, which is the motor vehicle arbitration program that is supported by the motor vehicle industry across Canada, is hearing the west's voice for the first time. In the last month, I met with the general manager of CAMVAP. He came out to British Columbia, recognizing that while they could certainly go it on their own here in this province, there is a need to bring a strong voice for consumers to that table, and he encouraged the province to be a part of it.
As we shared in the estimates, the voice that this province has provided has required CAMVAP not only to rethink some of its proposals but also to address British Columbia's issues. At the same time, recognizing that the arbitration process is not an end to all means, this province will continue to represent consumers -- for example, by looking at legislative options. This province will continue with the work we have underway around full-disclosure leases, as well as with looking for other opportunities to support consumers in addressing their issues. If we become involved with the arbitration process, we will not rule out lemon laws in this province. We would encourage the member himself to continue to be a strong voice in representing consumers' interests, as I have done.
[10:30]
Recreation and co-ops are two other areas in our ministry that I want to touch on very briefly. Recreation in this province has been the purview of a very elite group of people for too long. The voice and leadership that this ministry is able to provide will not only support volunteer recreation commissions and aboriginal youth leadership programs around this province but also bring a strong voice for equity and fairness in all recreation commissions. This minister will advocate not only on behalf of inclusive representation for women in recreational opportunities but also on behalf of those who cannot afford to take part in recreation facilities, recognizing that those facilities are paid for by all taxpayers. There should be equal access for all taxpayers in this province, whether or not they can afford the ticket price.
In the area of cooperatives, the member referenced the fact that we have one FTE in our ministry. The cooperative task force recommended a central entry into government. Our role is not regulatory but, instead, will facilitate and encourage education in government, look at opportunities for the cooperative sector, eliminate barriers, and liaise with the federal government's cooperative sector. For the first time, it provides a focal point for the kinds of resources and strengths the cooperative movement brings to both economic and social development in our communities around this province.
I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak a little bit about the work that is underway. Both for members in this House and for people in this province, in the next month you will see a number of good-news announcements, where we have been able to move on the recommendations of the provincial housing commission and on the direction that we have taken from communities.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 32.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT
(continued)
H. De Jong: I understand the Leader of the Official Opposition has a time limit today, so I would yield my speaking turn to him at this point.
[ Page 10368 ]
G. Campbell: I thank the hon. member for yielding his time to me so that I can participate in this stage of the debate.
I will be brief in my discussion of Bill 32, which is necessitated by the fact that Bill 32 is extremely brief. It is a very thin document dealing with a subject that is extremely important to the people of British Columbia. This surprisingly thin and generalized document really gives us no information about where we are going.
I want to start by recognizing the importance of forests to the province. They are one of the defining characteristics of this province, and it is essential that we have a long-term strategy to maintain and enhance the quality of our forests -- not just environmentally but economically -- so that we can secure the long-term vitality of communities throughout British Columbia that depend on our forests for their livelihood. I also want to congratulate the government for recognizing the need for a long-term forest renewal strategy. I accept the Minister of Forests' comments that he is entering this discussion in the spirit of non-partisanship and public goodwill. It is important for all of us in this House to provide a response that will secure long-term forests for British Columbia and the people who live here.
I do not accept the minister's comments that we should not subject this bill to full public scrutiny. One of the reasons for this is that this government has shown an uncanny knack for taking an idea that is strong in concept and, in execution, turning it into a problem for the people of the province. For example, think of the Closer to Home initiative, which everyone can endorse in terms of providing for more preventive health care and more secure community health care throughout this province. Who could argue with the Seaton commission proposals? Unfortunately, the government decided to politicize those proposals. The proposals have been overwhelmed by ideology, committees and councils, so that today we see health care costs rising, health care services to patients falling, and people throughout the province concerned about the long-term security of their health care, not because of the concept but because of the way this government has decided to execute it.
The labour review panel was another example of a good public relations exercise that turned into bad public policy. Any time a government removes an individual worker's right to a secret ballot, they are removing one of the fundamental rights that we have, and that we should have, in the workplace. Good public relations; bad public policy.
My concern is that we cannot afford to have bad public policy when it comes to renewing our forests. We cannot afford bad public policy that jeopardizes the jobs of British Columbians throughout this province. We cannot afford to have the kind of government policy and the execution of that policy that we have seen reflected in this government's actions in the past.
The fundamental problem that the government seems to have is it believes that the unanimity of special interests is a reflection of the public interest. It is not. When the minister introduced his bill, he pointed out that he wanted to have a partnership of all the groups with a stake in the forests. The minister suggested that we on this side of the House are opposed to a partnership. That is not correct. We are opposed to coercive partnerships, which are arranged when one of the partners has a gun at their head and the other doesn't. Those are not long-term partnerships. The problem we have is that every single British Columbian has a stake in the forests. Only one forum in British Columbia has a credible claim with regard to representing every citizen, and that's this Legislature.
I would urge the minister to rethink the establishment of yet another Crown corporation which will not be accountable to this House. It will be a place for new head offices, new presidents and new patronage appointments. That does not put British Columbians first; it puts the political agenda of this government first. We know that Crown corporations are not accountable to the public. Can anyone here believe that this House would decide to have a cocktail party to celebrate tax increases for all citizens of British Columbia, such as we saw with B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation? Does anyone here believe that we or a minister of this House would stand up and say that it's time we provided $1 million of taxpayers' money to make sure that we can celebrate games at an arena, as one of our Crown corporations, the Lottery Corporation, has done? Equally, do we believe that this House would allow the kind of activity to take place that we've seen at the WCB? We have watched deficits increase there to over half a billion dollars, and services have decreased. The concern that we on this side of the House have is that we are going to see $600 million coming into the public purse, but we will not have any public accountability for that.
I have travelled around this province talking to people since this government's announcement of its public relations exercise. Rather than selling their announcement, I have been listening to the questions people are asking with regard to this program. Regardless of where you are, the same questions come up: is this the way the government hopes they can paper over the confiscation of jobs that they have provided for in the past; is this the government's excuse to implement the CORE proposals without referring back to the regions where those proposals will have a negative impact on jobs and community vitality; and is this the government's excuse for pretending that they are dealing with long-term sustainable work in the forests while at the same time they are removing jobs from their overall policy?
The hon. minister told us that he was concerned about the competitiveness of our forest industry in British Columbia. If you're concerned with our competitiveness, hon. minister, it is going to be important that you go beyond what is specified in this very general bill you've placed before the House. You're going to have to understand that if you're going to encourage value-added industry, it's not going to be with subsidies. It's going to be with a government tax structure that does not penalize investment and that encourages job creation, as opposed to fighting it.
As I travelled through the Cariboo and to the north and talked to the independent lumber producers in Prince George, one of the first things they said to me was: "Is this not just another one of those examples where the government takes money from our community, and then we have to go and beg for it to be invested back in our community?" There are no guarantees in this legislation -- not one guarantee -- that where revenues are generated, revenues will be reinvested. Why should those communities believe that the government will change its act this time? There is no reason to.
The key to this proposal will be when the government explicitly shows in their legislation that where revenues are generated they are reinvested in the forests and the communities, so that those jobs can be contained and sustainable over the long term. The minister has not dealt with that; the legislation does not deal with that. So there are real concerns around this province that this is simply another way for the government to pull more money into itself, where it can have control over what is taking place and make political allocations of resources, as opposed to
[ Page 10369 ]
allocating resources to the communities that generate the resources to begin with. This bill must ensure that the connection is made between where the revenues are generated and where the investments are made to renew and sustain our forests.
The government has said to us that everyone can feel comfortable; we are saying what's going to happen with the law. We have learned how this government treats its obligations to the people of British Columbia through legislation. We've seen it this term with the budget -- a quarter of a billion dollars in the fund was supposed to go to the property tax payers of British Columbia. This government wiped it out with one small piece of legislation.
This government is capable of doing exactly the same thing with this piece of legislation. They dress it up, have a great public relations exercise and go on their sales tours across the province. But they don't deal with the explicit job that they have to do, which is to ensure that those revenues are going to be invested in the forests of British Columbia, so that we can maintain the long-term security of our forest jobs and the long-term vitality of our forest communities. It is essential that the government deal with this prior to the conclusion of this legislation.
One thing we do know from the government's pronouncements is that less than half of the dollars generated from this $600 million fund are going to go back into the forests. We do know there's a very general envelope about community enhancement. Those things are not the direction that we should be going in. We should be ensuring that those investments are going to revivify and revitalize our forests and to provide for the environmental improvements that every British Columbian demands, not to be subject to political whim or the kind of political handouts that we've seen be so popular with this government and previous governments.
We on this side of the House recognize that the forest industry is our primary industry; almost one out of five jobs in British Columbia is in the forest industry. We believe it is essential that we have strong public policy that ensures we can maintain those jobs and create the kind of forest industry that should be the example the world tries to follow -- a forest industry that provides for environmental improvement and enhancement, but that also ensures that someone who is working in that industry can look to a long-term future and plan for their family's future and their own working future.
[10:45]
We see right now a lot of games with numbers and figures -- no accountability or specificity. We see a lot of mistrust in the communities of British Columbia about a government that abandoned them, until they decided to come and visit on the legislative lawns and remind them of the importance of families, of the family economy and of communities' economies.
We heard a lot about partnership from the minister when he introduced this bill. In the intervening ten days since the bill was introduced, we have already heard that one of the partners isn't sure that the government is going to live up to their side of the deal. This bill does not make it clear what the deal is. Something is happening here that the public has not been privy to. The fact of the matter is that people are asking this government for answers; this bill does not provide those answers. It raises a series of questions: how are we going to make sure that this investment goes into the forests; how are we going to ensure that this Crown corporation will somehow be totally different from all other Crown corporations and suddenly become accountable?
There is only one way, and that is to not establish a Crown corporation. Make sure that these funds go into the forests and are publicly perused by the Legislature on an annual basis. Ensure that our communities are being protected and that the voices of our communities are being heard. Let's not simply have the trained seals from one side of the House stand up and salute a government plan that does not protect their communities or the jobs in those communities, and does not secure the long-term sustainability of our forests. That's what this bill is suggesting.
We cannot support a bill that gives no assurance to the communities of British Columbia that the jobs will be there. This bill does not do that. When you talk to people in the silviculture industry, they are worried that the government will be confiscating their jobs and pretending that they're creating another set of jobs on another payroll. We have to add to our jobs, not detract from our jobs. We can do that with proper government legislation. This does not reflect that, so we are not going to support the bill in its present state.
We believe it is essential that we have a sustainable framework for our forests. We believe it is essential that we have a true partnership, not a partnership that's based on coercion. And we believe it is essential that we as MLAs can stand up and say to all of the communities we represent that this legislation will secure the long-term viability of our forests and the long-term jobs of the people who work in the forests, and that it will not pretend to do that behind a smokescreen of public relations.
This is an important bill that we will deal with in this House. I look forward to the minister working to actually make this bill work, as opposed to creating a public relations exercise that can travel around the province trying to sell this.
H. De Jong: This is one of those beautiful British Columbia mornings when I think we'd all like to roll up our sleeves and get out there and plant some trees. It's exactly that kind of day, and that's exactly what I feel like doing, rather than standing up in the House and talking about it.
The session this morning started off on a somewhat disappointing note, I thought. When we talk about forestry and the industry connected with it, I'm sure that the forest industry is probably the one where people are most prone to getting injured and perhaps even killed. During the minister's statement and the response from the official opposition, I found it very distasteful that no reference was made to the children and mothers who were left behind. I hope that when we have our one-minute silence we would all think about what we as individuals would like to encourage British Columbians to do about assisting those people who have experienced the loss of a father, mother or son -- whatever the case may be -- in an industrial accident.
To get back to the BC Forest Renewal Act, as I hear the members of the government, it sounds as though all of a sudden this government is going to do something that was not done before. I believe it's quite the opposite. In fact, massive reforestation was done under the last Social Credit government. Over the last two years of that government, one and a half billion trees were planted in British Columbia. During those last two years, 400 trees were planted for every man, woman and child in British Columbia.
Interjection.
H. De Jong: The member for Yale-Lillooet stands up and says: "Well, there were 100,000 here and 100,000 there." I'm
[ Page 10370 ]
extremely sorry that the backbenchers of the government have been so ill-informed.
Prior to this bill, reforestation was done through the private sector. Under this bill, it's now going to be done under a Crown corporation. The question must be asked, though: how many trees did the government plant in the first two years of their mandate? Did they match the last two years of the Social Credit government? I doubt it. I hope that we hear those answers when the Minister of Forests' estimates come up, because I do not for one minute think that the current government can meet the activities of the previous administration in that respect.
After all the controversy on the floor of this House this year regarding Crown corporations and the abuse by people who run the Crown corporations, why would the government start another Crown corporation to do the work that the Minister of Forests should be most proud of having as part of his ministry? Why would they put it into another Crown corporation? I simply cannot understand it. Is it because the entrepreneurs have not properly looked after the replanting? I haven't heard from anyone on the government side that it wasn't done properly or that there were problems. I haven't heard that there is a real problem in terms of public acceptance of tree replanting. Why do we need all the committees going around the province? I simply cannot see it. It's nothing but a boondoggle and a waste of money.
The member for Nanaimo spoke very eloquently about Bill 32 the other day. But like many others, he mentioned in his speech the other day that this bill, and the regulations that go along with this bill, I suppose, will really assist the salvagers who clean up after the loggers. I see no specific references in the bill recognizing the salvage business; there are none.
Strangely enough -- or perhaps I should say fortunately enough -- I have a number of these operators in my constituency. In fact, on a number of occasions I have sent to the Minister of Forests pictures provided to me by the salvage operators of what is happening in terms of the salvaging after the loggers have basically done their job. The amount of logs and good, usable timber piled up to be burned is amazing. It's a shame, not only because these salvagers provide good jobs but also because we know what the air pollution problem is like in the eastern part of the Fraser Valley, and those things only add to the air pollution problems.
It would provide good jobs for people; it would take away the waste that the people of British Columbia have been concerned about. I believe that it could be fixed very simply, because what happens today is that whatever a salvager takes off the field after the loggers have completed their work is then held against the logging company's allowable cut. That's where the rub is: it has nothing to do with the improvements through a Crown corporation or anything else. If those people could only take the wood off, make use of it, provide jobs and eliminate a lot of the environmental problems that go along with the burning, then I think the minister would be on the right track.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I understand that we are going to have a minute of silence, and I will break for now and go on after that.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Abbotsford for yielding his place to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who I understand is going to make a brief statement by agreement.
F. Randall: I just want to make a comment regarding the Workers Mourning Day Act, and to say at the outset that each year more than 1,000 Canadian workers are killed on the job, thousands more are permanently disabled and hundreds of thousands are injured. In British Columbia, 31 workers in the forest industry alone die on the job each year. That does not include the hundreds of thousands of deaths from cancer, lung disease and other ailments caused by exposure to various toxic matters in the workplace that go unrecorded.
Recognizing the significance of these deaths is the reason behind the Workers Mourning Day Act. This act, which became law on February 1, 1991, marks April 28 as a Day of Mourning for Workers Killed or Injured on the Job. This day is a chance to show respect for those who have died on the job as well to educate the public about the need for stricter, safer policies. Workers across B.C. will observe a minute of silence in their workplace at 11:00 a.m. today, and I would ask all members of this Legislature to stand at 11:00 a.m. and join other workers for one minute of silence on this workers' mourning day.
Hon. Speaker, I would assume that you will coordinate the time.
Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members to stand now and observe a minute of silence.
[11:00]
H. De Jong: As I was finishing up, I was talking about the salvage industry. I said that it does not take a Crown corporation to improve that aspect of logging operations. Nor does tree-planting nor any work connected with silviculture require a Crown corporation, simply for the fact that there is no dispute within the public of British Columbia about the replanting of trees. But could it be, perhaps, that Mr. Williams is the instigator of all this? Could it be that Mr. Williams would probably be the czar of the Crown corporation leading the reforestation of British Columbia? Is that a possibility? Well, heaven help the logging industry and the future of logging and of forestry in British Columbia if Mr. Williams gets involved.
We don't need another Crown corporation. The people of British Columbia have said loudly and clearly that they do not want more government, but less. They do not want more expensive administrations to handle the reforestation of British Columbia; they want to do it simply and truthfully. I doubt that we will get an accurate accounting of the reforestation of British Columbia if this Crown corporation is anything like some we have at the present time. I'm very serious when I ask the question: why take it out of the Ministry of Forests?
I see this as the most important issue for this government and for future governments. The future of the renewable forest industry is the future of our province. It's the number one industry. If we think that the demands on our resources are more than we can handle or more than the sustainability of the industry and the resource can afford at the present time -- and the growing population all around the world will put further demands on the industry, particularly on lumber for building houses and whatever -- how will we be able to cope 50 years from now? That's why I love the intent of the bill, because that's where we should be heading. But in light of what I've just said, I have great difficulty understanding what this government has done up till now and what it is planning to do. It would almost seem that the government is already admitting that it was a great big
[ Page 10371 ]
mistake to cut 12 percent -- which in some communities adds up to 25 percent -- out of the allowable forest base of the forest industry. That is a mistake.
The member for Yale-Lillooet and others in the government back benches have talked about this bill being like the agricultural land reserve. I have the bill here with me, and nowhere can I find anything where it would do that in terms of protecting forest lands. Nothing in this bill compares to the agricultural land reserve. I'm not going to go all over the agricultural land reserve, because we will get another opportunity to talk about that. The point is that.... The member for Parksville-Qualicum really hit the nail on the head a few months ago when he had an article in his local paper that talked about a forestry reserve. He made the comparison between a forestry reserve and the agricultural land reserve. The agricultural land reserve was established to maximize production on available land in British Columbia. While there is only 2.5 percent of arable agriculture land in British Columbia, it was a good move in general. There are some problems with it, but they've basically been created by the bureaucracy attendant with it.
At the same time, this government has given away another 6 percent of forestry land in British Columbia over the last month. I tend to think that that is a far greater area than all of the agricultural land in British Columbia. Those are lands where the forests grow. It's not mountaintops, where it's all rocks. No, those are forestry lands, and they have cut them out of production. Basically that's what they did by setting it aside for parks and who knows what all.
A big park was set aside last year in the Tatshenshini. The CORE report was very controversial all across the province. Now they talk about a strong reforestation program on what's left. It's like putting the cart before the horse: first they eliminate the land from the forestry base, and then they're going to do something about reforestation. Surely, if this government were serious about having a continued strong forestry base in British Columbia, it would not eliminate forestry lands for that specific purpose; it would include them. I hope the Minister of Forests would take note of what the member for Parksville-Qualicum said, because he's one of his own party and probably has more influence than anyone in the opposition.
I fear that the government we have today, given their past history -- in opposition they were hugging up to the tree-huggers, the environmentalists and all that, and still today they're giving heed to those same kinds of people -- will not have the guts to put in a forestry reservation, like they did with the agricultural land reserve. They won't have the guts, because they would be in trouble with all the people who elected them.
If this bill really were one of reforestation, I could wholeheartedly vote for it. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Whether it comes from the logs or through stumpage fees, whether it comes out of general revenue or through a Crown corporation, the channels don't matter. This government hasn't been serious up to this point, because I do not believe that in the first two years of their mandate it met the previous administration's overall planting program. But if this government is serious about the tree-planting program, it should get on with it -- not with a Crown corporation, because we do not need more bureaucracy.
There are no people in British Columbia who are upset about a tree-planting program. Every British Columbian would be fully behind this government if it were to say: "We are going to put $400 million or $500 million into the replanting program over and above what we have done before." That is the key, but the government is not saying that. They are not saying they're going to spend $400 million or $500 million more. They are simply adding another levy because the log prices are good and high at the present time and the logging companies can afford it. They are not saying they will do it in addition to what was planted before, and that is the fault of this bill.
G. Farrell-Collins: Could I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I had the pleasure a few minutes ago of meeting a group of grade 5 students from North Otter Elementary School in the Aldergrove area. I want to ask the House to make them welcome, along with their teacher Ms. Barlow and several parents who have come here to help them find their way around Victoria.
L. Boone: It's a pleasure to stand here today to talk about an exciting bill -- exciting not just for my community in the Prince George and Robson Valley region but for the entire province.
The economy of this province depends on the forest sector. That may come as a surprise to many. I know my colleague says the mining industry is important, and we know it's important. But my community and many communities around this province depend on the strength and success of the forest sector. Those who live in Victoria and on Vancouver Island may not recognize it, but many of their dollars actually come from our communities. Those Howe Street boys wouldn't be there if they didn't have the forest sector to depend upon. Their fortunes rise and fall as the forest sector does.
Those of us who live in communities that are directly affected by the forest industry are recognizing, perhaps firsthand and maybe for the first time, how the forest sector affects us. We know when people are unemployed and when workers are not out earning money. We recognize that the forest sector is very important and that our economy certainly depends on it. It's time that the rest of the province understood just how important and valuable forestry is to this province.
There were days when a young person could leave school and go out into the woods or to a mill and earn a good living. In fact, when I first went to Prince George, I was teaching, and young fellows used to say to me: "Why should I learn this? I'm just going to work in the woods, and I'm going to earn more money than you." They were right: they could earn more money than me -- and they did. But those days are over. Those jobs aren't there anymore, and those people are having difficulty finding places where they can get that money. The greenchains are gone. The way you cut trees out there is no longer the same. A lot of the jobs that were in the forest industry ten, 15 or 20 years ago are no longer there.
Over the years we have watched the workforce decrease. It has done so not because of a shortage of timber -- we have certainly cut a lot of timber over the years -- but because of changing technology. That's something people are recognizing; they know about it. They know that the jobs aren't there, but nobody has done anything about that. We are now cutting and processing trees faster, and that means we're using more trees. We're using up the resources of this province faster than we've ever done before. What does that mean? It means that we have a handful of workers out there doing the work that used to be done by many, and we're actually processing and using more trees. Nobody has addressed this problem over the past few years. Everybody knows it's there. Those who are working in
[ Page 10372 ]
forestry and those in the industry and the government all know that there has been a problem, but nobody has addressed it. The industry and government haven't, and I know that the workers really can't do too much about it.
[11:15]
Communities are scared. Hon. Speaker, I know that communities in your riding, in my riding and throughout this entire province are worried, and understandably so. People see the jobs disappearing, and they don't see other jobs coming up to replace them. They see pressures from environmentalists and other interest groups and from the tourism sector and recreation groups -- from everybody. They see their livelihood, as they have known it for years, being threatened. The fact that they may not be able to pay their bills, put food on the table for their kids and pay their mortgages creates a terrifying atmosphere for many people in communities throughout this province.
The forest renewal program that has been brought in by this government addresses those concerns. It is unique, because it brought together all those players: industry, labour, community leaders, aboriginal leaders and environmentalists. All of them sat down around a table for months, starting almost a year ago. I know that Mayor Backhouse from my community was one of those people who sat there trying to figure out how we can deal with the problems of this province and the concerns of all individuals throughout this province. They recognized that we couldn't continue as we have done. They recognized that the pressures on the supplies out there and the pressures coming from other interest groups were such that we needed to change the way we did business and the way we were operating in this province, or this forest sector would not be here for future generations. The problem was: who would take the lead on this? Would industry? They looked around and said: "Why should we take the lead? We don't know if we're going to be here in ten years' time." Would government? They didn't know what they were going to do. Should communities? They were saying: "We don't know." Nobody knew who should take the lead.
This forest renewal program meant that everybody had a part in taking the lead in this program. It was a partnership that came about through the recognition that this province needed to change.
We will have $2 billion of new money -- that's new money -- being invested in our forests over five years. That's over and above the existing silviculture program, the program that plants those trees that the previous member was talking about. This is dedicated money; it's not money that can be siphoned off. Some government can't say: "I think we need a bridge here; I think we need a road in this area." This money is dedicated to be put into our forest sector, and that's important. It's important to me and to my community, and I will rest a lot easier knowing that. In Prince George last week, the Premier made a commitment to our community that those moneys would come back to our communities as well. Those people who invest in their area would see some of those dollars returned to their area. Again, that's important.
The priority of the renewal program is improved silviculture. The previous speaker talked about planting trees. There is no problem with the way we're planting trees. Yes, we have planted many trees -- not so many in the first half of the eighties but certainly in the last half of the eighties and in the last few years. With the involvement of FRDA and the federal government, we have seen a considerable numbers of trees planted. But anybody out there, whether they're a worker or in the industry, will tell you that we haven't done anything else. We haven't done the intensive silviculture that's necessary to make sure that those trees survive and grow strong and tall. We haven't done any of those things.
Those in the industry that I've talked to say: "Why should we do it? We don't know if we're going to have those trees ten, 15, 70 years down the road. Why should we invest in an intensive silviculture program to make sure that those trees are around?" Government says: "Why should we invest in this? You may get the trees down the road, so why would we put money into a thing where Fletcher Challenge is going to reap the profits?" This program recognizes what everybody says: "We've got a problem. We need to do some intensive silviculture." And that's what's going to happen.
We will be out there thinning those trees and making sure that they are utilized. In Sweden, where they do intensive silviculture and thinning, using some of those trees that are thinned has actually produced another industry.
We will be restocking lands that haven't been restocked in the past. We've got Ag leases in my area where people have come in and cut down trees, supposedly for agricultural purposes, but they have never actually done any agriculture on that land. So they sit there, not being restocked, and with nothing happening to them. We can also do some in roads. That will expand the available land. By expanding the available land, we will be providing more trees for future generations. All of those things are important to us.
We will be cleaning up the environmental damage that is out there. We'll be testing new approaches to forest management, such as community forests -- an important and interesting concept that's working in some areas of the province. I know a number of communities that are looking to have a community forest.
The industry will be creating more value-added industries, and we'll be providing assistance to help them start up those industries. That means that we will keep our products here in B.C. We won't be shipping logs to be produced into tables and windows and what have you somewhere else; we can do those things here.
We'll be putting some money into research and development to find out what products are required and what type of wood works for those products. We've seen some disastrous results when companies came in with a value-added industry, full of anticipation and high hopes, but then they'd find out that they were using the wrong type of wood, and they'd go down the tube. That's not acceptable either.
We will be providing dollars to make sure that our forest workers and young people are trained properly, and in many cases retrained. People working in the forest sector can then be proud of the work they do and know what they're doing there. The forest renewal plan gives us a tool to deal with and counter some of the propaganda that's going on in Europe. Our Premier has been doing that as well, and I am proud of the work he has done to counter the outright lies people are telling to try to boycott our province in Europe.
The Liberals, Socreds and Reformers have been complaining about how this fund will operate, and we've heard them talk about a new agency. This new agency is going to be called Forest Renewal B.C., and it will manage and direct the investment in partnership. I don't understand why people are so opposed to us working in partnership with government, forest industry, workers, first nations, communities and environmentalists, with all of them directing how our dollars are going to be put into this
[ Page 10373 ]
province. What more does the opposition want? What more do they want than to have all those people involved, saying that this is where the dollars should go, this is where our priorities are and this is what we as a government want to do. They will report back to the legislative committee, where members will have an opportunity to ask questions and find out where those dollars are going. Their records will be submitted to the minister and the auditor general, and they are going to report to this Legislature. How many more checks and balances does the opposition want in terms of making sure that this agency functions properly on behalf of the people?
We understand the role of opposition; we opposed for a long time. The role of an opposition is to be the eyes and ears of the public. It's to be critical of legislation, to check things over and make sure that the public understands what's going on. But these opposition parties, groups and individuals, or whatever you want to call them, have gone too far. They don't understand that there comes a time when you've got to recognize that something is good. As an opposition member, there were times when I stood in this House and said: "I fully support this piece of legislation; this is good news." The opposition parties ought to have the guts to stand here and say that this is good legislation and good news for the people of British Columbia, instead of all this braying and bleating of concerns about a Crown corporation. Goodness gracious, this is the best news that British Columbia has had for a long time. I find it a little confusing, because when the new Liberal leader was in Prince George recently, the day after the announcement....
Interjection.
L. Boone: Gordon 2, yes.
When he was in Prince George just after the announcement, he said: "I think the concept is a good concept. It's something that we've needed in British Columbia for some time. We need to have a long-term forest strategy that will provide for the long-term health of the forests, the forest communities and the forest economy." That's what the Liberal leader said on April 15. The Liberal leader said it was a good concept and something that we need -- namely, a long-term strategy. And here he is -- what, half an hour ago? -- saying he's going to oppose this bill. He's going to oppose a bill that gives us a long-term strategy for the forest sector of our province, and on April 15 he said he supported it. Amazing, isn't it? It's absolutely incredible. Just flip-flopping like you can't believe. We often wonder where they stand. We have never found out where they stood on Clayoquot. We never have found out whether they are against it. At some point, when the vote actually comes, I suppose we'll find out. Maybe by the time the vote actually comes on this bill, they will have decided that it is good, and they may in fact support it. It would be a unique opportunity to see them actually admit something is good.
I'd like all the opposition members to join with us and the rest of British Columbia to work to renew our forests in our province. We have a great and wonderful province. It's one of the best in this country. Together we can make this a strong, vibrant economy, one that we can all be proud of. But we can't do that alone, and that is why we needed the partnership to work together. There are going to be some bumps in this -- it's not going to be all smooth sailing; nothing is -- because this is a huge change. It's a radical move in this province to actually put in money and invest in the future of our province. But we are doing this, and we are going to make sure it works. I'm sure that with everybody working together -- the industry, workers, communities and even the opposition members -- if they actually pull together, we would finally find that we have some means to pull our province out of its problems.
[11:30]
This program recognizes the value of the forest workers, their families and the forest communities in this province. This program will make sure that our forests and workers are there for future generations. I'm proud of it. I hope the next Liberal who gets up to speak actually will take the opposite side and show support for this strong community project.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise in delighted support of Bill 32, which is the finest piece of legislation that has come down the pike for a while. This is excellent news for British Columbians. This is good news for industry, workers, environmentalists and communities. It's good news for the future of British Columbians and ought to be good news for the opposition.
I was up in Kamloops the day after the act was introduced. I spent some time with the hon. Minister of Forests and saw the reception that this act, the new forest renewal plan, received at the Interior Logging Association. I saw smiles everywhere. When we walked around, looked at the equipment and talked to suppliers, workers, equipment manufacturers and the families of these people, all of them were happy. All of them saw new hope for their future and for their communities and families. That is what this bill promises. A new sense of hope was clearly evident at that association meeting.
Later I was up in Terrace and in Smithers speaking to groups, and again the reception was unanimously positive. Who came out to those talks? Students, workers, representatives of labour, representatives of industry, aboriginal people and environmental activists -- all of them were enthusiastic about this. They could not believe the promise this gave their communities. Their only question was, in effect: how quickly can we get at it? How quickly can we start to see this great plan brought into action? They all had the same positive view of the future and new hope for their communities and for themselves.
We all know that our forests have been the root of our prosperity and the backbone of our communities. We know that it has been the source of pride for workers and communities. We know that we have had a system where that promise began in the woods, jobs and community support came from the woods, and jobs in downtown Vancouver came from the woods. We know that there are still about 94,000 jobs directly involved in forestry, and another 140,000 indirectly. We know that there's a $10 billion contribution to our gross domestic product. We know that half of all our export value comes from the forests. We know that in many parts of our province, over half the economic activity in a community is directly dependent on the forest, and in hundreds of other communities a very significant amount of employment and economic activity comes from the forest.
Yet what was happening? Government after government took it for granted. There was always another valley; there was always another area that we could move to. Decades of shortsighted government policy permitted overcutting on a massive scale. It permitted other wasteful forest practices to go on, and it permitted incredible amounts of damage to the environment.
What does the forest renewal plan give us? It gives us hope for a better future. It gives hope to the communities, to the worker and, yes, to the industry. But we must act now if
[ Page 10374 ]
we're going to make the changes in time to prevent future massive damage to our forest communities and to the workers in those communities. We must act now to renew our forests. We must act now to create more with the wood that we do cut. In doing that, of course, we face a series of challenges. How do we sustain our forests? How do we create more value and more jobs for every cubic metre cut? How do we protect the environmental values that we have and many other values that we put on our forests? How do we meet the demands of changing markets? How do we do all this while fostering partnership instead of confrontation and conflict?
We're doing it in a number of ways. This forest renewal plan is the new basis, but we've got the timber supply reviews going on to bring the cut down to sustainable levels. We know that if we don't do anything, we are going to see substantial reductions in cut in the future. If we do not do anything, we know that we will see the loss of thousands of additional jobs in our forest communities. Perhaps as many as 10,000 additional jobs will be lost if we don't take action now.
We know that we have the challenge of changing international markets. We know that there are other strong competitors who can come on. We know that there are unfair trade practices thrown at us to interfere with the development of our industry and our access to markets. That is one more challenge. We have also come to understand that the value of our forests is not just the standing fibre. We know there are fish and wildlife values; we know there are deeply held aboriginal values. We know that the recreational and tourism values are vitally important to the future of our province.
We can meet all of those challenges. We can renew our forests. We can establish a new, fundamentally different approach: the forest renewal plan. But government can't do it alone. We must have the wholehearted cooperation of forest companies, workers, first nations, communities and environmentalists, and they must all work together in partnership. That is precisely the spirit of cooperation that this forest renewal plan has established. That is the sense that I picked up in Kamloops. That is the message that we obtained in Smithers and Terrace. Finally, a government has taken a long-term view and has been willing to pull together a whole set of policies, having a good focus on the future while starting to deal with the problems today.
We will take some of the wealth created in the forest and put it back into the forest, into jobs and into communities. The goals of the plan, of course, are to fundamentally renew the forest and keep it healthy, to ensure a sustainable forest far into the future, to ensure forest jobs and all jobs related to the forest industry, and to encourage and ensure the long-term stability of our forest-dependent communities.
There are two main priorities for the forest renewal plan investments. First, we'll be giving it back to the forest through reforestation, improved silviculture and environmental cleanup of some of the damage that has occurred under previous administrations, and it will create more value and more jobs from the wood we cut. The research and development required in the value-added industry will also create jobs and strengthen our forest industries. Our investment in the forest lands will include matters far beyond just the standard planting of trees. The previous administration refers to the number of trees planted, but simply planting trees is not silviculture. We will be doing enhanced, improved silviculture: thinning, spacing, pruning, commercial thinning and fertilization where required. We will be doing this in addition to the silviculture and replanting work already being done.
In the environment, we will be cleaning up some of the mess left behind by the previous administration: rehabilitating streams and rivers and correcting some of the problems where poorly designed roads have been put in, unfortunately, with sometimes near-disastrous consequences to hillsides and streams. We'll be making investments to protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats.
The forest renewal plan will also provide some new approaches to stewardship of the forest, including community forests and an expanded woodlot program. There will be incentives for companies such that a full range of forest types will be harvested in a sustainable way. There will be policy incentives to encourage forest companies to make use of the residual timber that is now being left behind in harvested areas. The investment to create more value will include some assistance in start-up and expansion for companies involved in value-added production. There will be some research and development on new technologies, products and markets, and, very importantly, guaranteed access to a better supply of wood for their endeavours. Through the forest sector skills council, we will coordinate and evaluate existing training and develop new training programs to assist workers in the forests to take on new jobs as old ones are lost. There will be specific training programs to assist workers moving into wood processing and value-added manufacturing. All through this, the full participation of aboriginal persons will be encouraged, and they will be assured full access.
The combined effects of the plan, then, will be to stabilize the economies of forest communities through the maintenance of good-paying jobs. That will save government a great deal of money in other areas. At present, great economic stress occurs, and then we face costs in our health care and legal systems in a variety of other ways. All or a great percentage of those costs can be prevented if we take action now.
How will this great promise come to be? How will it be made into a reality? Additional stumpage charges will net some $400 million per year to invest back in the forests, and by law those funds must be dedicated to that purpose. We'll manage this through a new partnership agency, Forest Renewal B.C. That agency will have representatives of government, the forest industry, workers, first nations, communities and environmentalists. That is the way we will maintain clear accountability to the public. Not only that, but Forest Renewal B.C. will report to the Minister of Forests and, through that minister, to the Legislature. There will be full public accountability of this process.
[11:45]
The forest renewal plan provides the vision to meet the land use challenges we have been facing in B.C. We're doing it in a variety of ways. We're improving the way we work in the forests with the Forest Practices Code. The timber supply reviews are ensuring that we can harvest at a sustainable level. We're moving away from confrontation through the CORE process and the protected areas strategy process. We're resolving the land disputes with first nations through the B.C. Treaty Commission and interim measures. All told, we have worked the right way. This entire initiative has come about in partnership, by sitting down with these various groups for a year or a year and a half to bring it all together. The forest renewal plan will take only a fair share of the wealth from the forests and invest it back into the forest lands, where it belongs.
As I said at the outset, this is an excellent plan which deserves the wholehearted support of every member in this
[ Page 10375 ]
House. Yet, as the member for Prince George-Mount Robson commented a few minutes ago, the Liberal opposition leader, within a few days of its announcement -- and I too would love to read his statement into the record -- said: "I think the concept is a good concept. It's something that we've needed in British Columbia for some time. We need to have a long-term forest strategy that will provide for the long-term health of the forests, the forest communities and the forest economy."
I think there was a rock song entitled "Flip-Flop." Now we've got the Liberal flip-flop. Having the opportunity to support a solid, excellent, well-thought-out piece of legislation brought together by all of the partners in the forest sector -- and with almost 100 percent public support -- now we have the Liberals playing political games with the future of the most vital industry in British Columbia.
Shortly after the Leader of the Opposition assumed his place, I understand they took him out to show him a tree. They said: "Sire" -- he prefers to be addressed as Sire -- "this is a tree." Then they took him further and actually showed him a forest. It was a marvel, in his eyes. He got some way into the hinterland before he started to get nervous about his urban roots. Friends, he actually got as far as Fort Langley. Then he hurried back to Howe Street for a little sustenance -- he slipped over to the Vancouver Club for a little male bonding, I understand. Something must have happened along the line back there, I guess, because he now suddenly opposes an excellent piece of legislation.
So the question that citizens of British Columbia are going ask the loyal opposition is simple: will the individual members -- even those marked for destruction by their hon. leader -- stand in their place, have the courage to set aside petty politics and support the future of B.C.'s most vital industry? That is the question.
W. Hurd: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: On behalf of the member for Matsqui, I am pleased to introduce a group of 40 students from Robert Bateman Secondary, in Matsqui, and their teacher Mr. Vic Epp. Would the House make them most welcome.
G. Janssen: I rise to take my place in debate on Bill 32. However, recognizing the hour on the clock, I move adjournment of debate until this afternoon.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]