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)
FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 2
[ Page 10621 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
TRIBUTE TO GEORGE WOODCOCK
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe all members may enjoy this tribute in recognition of an outstanding British Columbian. On Sunday, George Woodcock, this country's pre-eminent man of letters, a tireless defender of civil liberties throughout the world and a champion of Canadian writing, will be 82 years of age. The city of Vancouver has designated him as a Freeman of the City -- certainly its highest honour. It has also proclaimed May 7 to be George Woodcock Day in Vancouver.
Tomorrow evening George Woodcock's fellow writers will gather in the great hall of the law courts in Vancouver. The tenth annual British Columbia Book Prize will be the setting for a tribute unmatched in the province and, indeed, anywhere in Canada. Over 1,000 artists and writers will be present to demonstrate their respect for the achievements of this very remarkable individual. In addition, Simon Fraser University is presenting a symposium on his life and work. Vancouver's Bau-Xi Gallery is hosting a special exhibition of art in Woodcock's honour, including work by his many friends in British Columbia's artistic community.
I believe there is much to celebrate about George Woodcock. His first book of poems appeared in 1940, well over half a century ago, and since then he has written over 120 books. In one banner year, 1966, he had no less than five books on the presses simultaneously. They have been translated into a number of languages, including French, Italian, German, Spanish, Swedish, Portuguese, Malaysian and Japanese. He has written for the Canadian broadcasting system for over 30 years. He was a founder of the influential journal Canadian Literature and its editor from 1959 to 1977. This was the first journal dedicated wholly to Canadian writing, and George Woodcock's high standards as editor were a positive influence on the emergence of Canadian literature. Indeed, he supported and encouraged fellow writers, particularly those beginning their craft, to an extraordinary degree.
George Woodcock's literary labours have been truly various -- poetry, plays, translations, history, travel, criticism and biography, including the most popular biography of Orwell -- and have occupied him over many years. It is perhaps his versatility, combined with an immense breadth of interest, that makes him unique in our time.
George Woodcock was born in Winnipeg in 1912 and spent his formative years in Great Britain. There, he was part of the progressive literary and political movements of the day, which included Herbert Read, Bertrand Russell, George Orwell and W.H. Auden.
He returned to Canada in 1949, seeking a more open society, and homesteaded with his wife, Ingeborg, in Sooke, British Columbia. He later acknowledged that he had found "intellectually and politically, more freedom, more space to move my mind, in Canada than in most of the other places I have known." Whether homesteading in Sooke, battling with academic bureaucrats at UBC or fighting a running battle with the U.S. immigration department, life was seldom easy for the Woodcocks. But throughout it all, the writing continued, and the attachment to British Columbia grew.
One of those attachments was his role as historian of the Doukhobor people. Woodcock had long been a pacifist and an anarchist, and in the Doukhobors he saw many admirable qualities. He was also deeply concerned with the place of aboriginal peoples in our society. Presenting a balanced and inclusive view of our collective history on this coast was an objective in writing his history of British Columbia. In its preface George Woodcock writes:
"The more deeply I experience and understand and love this region I have made my own, the more I understand other people who seek to sustain the autonomy of their own cultural and political lives."
He came to feel strongly for the region and described himself as a British Columbian first and then as a Canadian. At the age of 60, he wrote: "I began as an internationalist anarchist. I have ended, without shedding any of my libertarian principles, as a Canadian patriot, deeply concerned with securing and preserving the independence of my country."
George Woodcock's political beliefs are rooted in the great struggle between the rights of the individual and the role of the state. He was a champion of individual liberties and independent thought throughout his life. Through his identification with the struggles of others, he established a friendship with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people in 1961, supporting their effort to regain self-determination. This has continued to be an important part of Woodcock's life through work with the Canada-India Village Aid Association and the Tibetan Refugee Aid Society.
George Woodcock never went to university as a student yet became one of the most eminent editors of his day. He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Victoria, the University of British Columbia, the University of Winnipeg, Sir George Williams and the Universite d'Ottawa. He remembers the United States as a great world of independent scholarship which transcends the academic walls. George Woodcock always refused honours from any government. I'm offering these few words of respect today as an individual and as an admirer of Woodcock.
On the occasion of George Woodcock's birthday, let us also take a moment to be reminded of the vital role that the creative artist plays in our society. Shelley spoke of poets as the unacknowledged legislators of the world; Solzhenitsyn held that a great writer is a second government in his country. In George Woodcock we have had a great voice for the individual and the independent thinker. He is a treasure of British Columbia, Canada and the world. We are richer for his life's works. I would ask all members to join me in wishing George and Ingeborg Woodcock well on this occasion.
The Speaker: In light of the nature of the comment by the hon. minister, I think it can be fairly described as a ministerial statement, and therefore the opposition is entitled to a response.
A. Warnke: Indeed, it's a pleasure and an honour to respond to the hon. minister and to recognize one of British Columbia's most outstanding citizens and his contributions to academic life and, even beyond that, to all peoples of the world -- so much so that the minister is quite correct that Professor Woodcock's reputation is international in scope. He has been recognized internationally. He's a great Canadian, and he is a great British Columbian; that has been reflected in his publications over the years.
Professor Woodcock has also encouraged and stimulated a whole generation -- or generations, for that matter -- of scholars in this province with his contributions to literature
[ Page 10622 ]
and history, his social and political critiques and his promotion of the independence of the person. I think it is most appropriate that we on this side of the House also share this recognition of Prof. George Woodcock. It's most appropriate and fitting to recognize this most talented British Columbian.
CRUEL AND USUAL PUNISHMENT
J. Pullinger: This morning I want to speak about something that may make some people a little uncomfortable but hopefully will be thought-provoking for all of us. Those of us of who have read Orders of the Day will know that the title of what I'm about to say is "Cruel and Usual Punishment." It's not a misprint. I want to talk about the kind of cruel and all too usual punishment that women in our society suffer annually, daily and weekly. I want to talk about the fact that women in our society are regularly and often sexually harassed or assaulted, physically attacked, raped and even murdered.
What prompted my statement today was an event that took place about a week and a half ago. I'm sure members will remember that a week ago last Wednesday a College of New Caledonia student, Krista Scott, was brutally beaten in a washroom at her college. She was beaten because she was a feminist. Krista dared to object to an assignment at her college that asked the male students of the class to plot the perfect rape. Her criminology instructor told the women in the class to plot frauds and break-ins, and he told the men to plot a perfect rape.
Let's think about that. I wonder how those women felt. When they sat there, knowing that the men in their class would be spending the next few days or weeks planning how to rape them, their sisters or their friends, I suspect they were extremely uncomfortable. I suspect they were self-conscious, embarrassed, probably a little anxious and afraid. I suspect the overwhelming majority of them felt intimidated.
Krista, however, had the courage to speak out and to do so loudly and publicly. She took a courageous feminist stand that said that what was happening was unacceptable. These are not her words, but by speaking out she made it clear that an activity that nurtured and perpetuated rape and violence against women was inappropriate and unacceptable. Krista was right, of course, but in speaking out she broke the rules of our society. She broke the rule that has for centuries said that women shouldn't speak out about these things. She broke the rule and the societal norm that said that women shouldn't speak out about these things. She broke the rule and the societal norm that said women shouldn't be outspoken or assertive, that women should not demand to be treated with respect and dignity, that women should accept the roles assigned to them because of their gender. Krista objected. She spoke out against sexism in our society, and she was cruelly beaten for being a feminist.
[10:15]
When I think about what happened to Krista, I can't help but remember a parallel and much worse incident. I'm sure every member knows that I'm thinking of the 14 women who were shot at the �XC40,1�cole Polytechnique in Montreal a few years ago because they were feminists. It too was a high-profile incident. Though those women had not spoken out, they had dared to trample on what had been male terrain for a long, long time; they were in the engineering faculty.
The problem is that we all grieve those cases, we all say that they're outrageous and we all, quite honestly, are appalled by them; but we tend to focus on these few high-profile cases which shock and outrage everyone and treat them as isolated incidents. If you remember, after Marc Lepine's ugly actions, there was a great debate about whether this was a random, isolated incident or whether, in fact, he had deliberately shot these women because they were doing what men are supposed to do. The evidence was clear: he said it was because they were feminists; he wrote letters that made this clear. Nevertheless, there was a great debate that muddied the waters and managed to obscure the reality. These incidents are not isolated; they're part of a pattern of violence, a pattern and continuum of denigration, marginalization and victimization of women in our society.
I want to look at the statistics, and when we do, let's remember that these are real women, women who are suffering every day. Almost half of the women in Canada will experience physical violence or rape -- almost half. One in four married women have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of her husband; that's 25 percent. One in three have feared for their lives at some time. Fully 60 percent of Canadian women will be sexually harassed or assaulted in their lives, and the overwhelming majority of those will be assaulted or harassed more than once. We have four women murdered every week, at least two of them at the hands of men they know.
What happens to those women, what happened to Krista and what happened to the 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique are not isolated incidents; they are part of a pattern of a system of violence against women. We need to ask ourselves why. We need to recognize that it's systemic, massive and cruel, and we have to ask why. What's the reason behind this behaviour? Why are women regularly harassed, assaulted, beaten, raped and murdered in our society?
The answer is clear. The evidence is there, but we as a society do not like to admit it, because if we do, we have to change. We have to change our attitudes, our behaviours and our institutions. What is the reason? It's about control and power. It's about women's place and male authority over women, about the role we as women are assigned in society and the consequences to us when we reject that role. Women in this country are subjected to cruel and depressingly usual punishment when they have challenged the status quo. On an individual level, when they start to leave a relationship or challenge what's happening in their own family or relationship, the violence escalates. When they step out of line or speak out in society, the treatment they receive is very difficult for them. We must agree to work together -- men and women across party lines -- to change what we see.
F. Gingell: When I first saw the title of the statement by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith this morning, I thought it might have been a light subject and that we were going to get official government notification that the House will sit well into August. But the hon. member has brought us a subject that is not a laughing matter; it's a serious matter dealing with a problem that is endemic in our society, one that we as legislators, in looking at our responsibilities, simply cannot stand by and do nothing about.
What is the first reaction of a man to the continual stories of extreme violence toward women by our media? I would hope that they join me, first of all, in sympathy. Then we have to have understanding for the plight and difficulties of the victim, and we have to try and find some understanding for the causes of these happenings. Then we must have the
[ Page 10623 ]
determination to do all that we can to ensure that day by day things become better rather than worse.
One wonders where all this violence comes from. I don't think violence stems from an inborn desire in man to hurt women; man's inborn, natural thoughts and actions are to love women, not to hurt them. But as the world has developed in the twentieth century, we have seen violence as a solution to our problems more and more. Our TV programs, videos, movies and books so often glorify violence and show it as a means of solving a problem, not as the creation of an even bigger one.
Is punishment a deterrent? Statistics in the United States indicate clearly that as more and more people have been incarcerated for crimes, the crime rates have gone up. Punishment doesn't seem to be a deterrent -- although the happenings this past week in Singapore, with the worldwide publicity that the caning of an American boy has received and the news and statistics on their crime rates, would seem to show that perhaps strict punishments work on some occasions. That isn't the answer.
The answer surely has to lie in the way we bring up our children, the home environment they live in and the training and environment in their schools. This problem cannot be solved by passing laws; it can only be solved by bringing up children in families that are loving and nurturing. I can assure the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith with all sincerity that the Liberal caucus is as dedicated as she is in this matter.
I'd like to close by reading into the record a statement made on December 6, 1992, by the Liberal MLA for Richmond East, who was at that time the official opposition critic for Women's Equality. December 6, 1992, was the third anniversary of the tragedy in Montreal, to which the member referred:
"Dear colleagues, zero tolerance of violence against women is the position of the official opposition Liberal caucus. The tragedy of December 6, 1989, must not be repeated. It is essential that people stand together, united in their belief that this issue will be resolved.
"Violence against women is a tragedy that touches too many lives. The solution lies partly in education, but it also requires mandatory prosecution through our criminal justice system. Violence against women is a crime and it must be recognized as a crime by all members of society.
"The goal of any legislation must be to ensure that the safety and security of all British Columbians is paramount. I look forward to working closely with the Minister of Women's Equality to achieve these ends."
The Speaker: Hon. members, as all of you recognize, the hon. member's time has expired. However, given the sensitivity of the subject and the importance of the statement, the Chair took the liberty of allowing extra time. I will now allow the hon. member to conclude.
J. Pullinger: I appreciate the comments from the opposition. We all acknowledge that we have to deal with violence in our society generally and that there is a role for families to play. But I want to be very clear that the violence we are speaking about is a different kind of violence, a violence perhaps intensified by societal violence but one, nonetheless, that has been throughout society and has been condoned by law. Until not too long ago, it was men's right, sanctioned by law, to control their wives, to beat their wives and to rape their wives. That's part of our history, and it's tragic. It's a different kind of violence that we are dealing with when we talk about violence against women. It's violence for the purpose of control, to oppress and marginalize women.
What I've been speaking about today is widespread; it's systemic and a very ugly problem in our society. It affects every one of us. Every woman is a potential victim; every man -- because you can't differentiate -- is suspect, although not all men are violent. All of us, if not victims of violence or denigration ourselves, have sisters, mothers, friends, daughters who are women. If you have a daughter, the odds are fifty-fifty that she'll be raped or beaten. That's not acceptable. It's a problem that affects us all.
There are a lot of people who are consciously working for a solution. Feminism in this country has been in two waves. The second wave started in the 1960s, when women started to understand that they not only needed to change themselves and their personal relationships, they needed to change society. In the sixties we had the women's liberation movement. We had a movement of men and women -- mostly women -- who recognized the inherent unfairness and inequality in our society that defines women by their sameness and men by their differences and then values men over women. Those people recognized that we needed to reshape society, our attitudes, behaviours and institutions so they are more inclusive, equal and comfortable for both sexes to work in.
[10:30]
The women's liberation movement in the 1960s was dismissed as bra-burning, men-hating women's libbers. Those who actively wanted change, because they wouldn't be silenced, shifted and became feminists rather than women's libbers. When feminism and feminists were deprecated, put down and silenced as man-hating radicals, it shifted, in the late eighties and nineties, to a movement for women's equality. Now that has become "politically correct." Every time there is an effective movement in our society to deal with women and women's inequality, that movement is denigrated and marginalized as deliberately as women are.
I want to challenge everyone in this House and beyond to think carefully about what has been said here today, to think carefully about what they say and do and to remember that if they tell a sexist joke that denigrates women, if they laugh at feminists, if they call things like child care programs, hiring targets, changes in language that are more inclusive, anti-hate legislation or pay equity "politically correct," then they're part of the problem not part of the solution. I challenge everyone in this House and beyond to stand up and say: "I am a feminist; I want to see change. I will stand with Krista. I will stand with those 14 women and the 60 percent of women who are victims of violence of one kind or another every day and work together for change."
Hon. R. Blencoe: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I would like to introduce some special guests to the Legislature today. We have 12 students of the Wilson Employment centre with their instructor, Ms. Guilbaut. They are here to see the activities of the House as part of their training program. Would the House please make them all welcome.
THE FORGOTTEN VICTIM
J. Dalton: It's appropriate that I follow the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, because some of the comments I will be making this morning fit in with her remarks in a way. My topic is the forgotten victim.
[ Page 10624 ]
Public confidence in the justice system has been shaken in recent days and weeks. The streets of Vancouver and seemingly every community in British Columbia are not safe. Dozens of ordinary citizens felt it necessary recently to attend a Vancouver courtroom and give support to a lawyer allegedly suppressed by officials. The Attorney General has been forced to appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the Danny Perrault corrections case. People are demanding meaningful discussion and a re-evaluation of the Young Offenders Act. Self-governing associations are criticized for not being responsive to public concerns, but more so to the protection and concerns of its members. Too often the Charter of Rights is cited to give weight to the legal rights of the accused, and too often we tend to forget the victim. The police cannot or will not convey information to the innocent public on surveillance issues. Hon. members will remember the recent incident in Surrey when a rapist was walking the streets of that community and unfortunately the women in that community who needed to be protected were not given the information.
It is important that rights be respected. It is important that we not hamstring the police in their investigation of criminal activity. However, I submit that it is more important that public safety be placed first in the order of priorities. It is necessary to consider the responsibilities we owe to each other and to society. I submit that these elements have been forgotten. Consequently, the victim has also been forgotten.
The victims are the innocent: the person shot to death while walking his dog, the Surrey youth killed by an act of random violence; the family crying out for justice because of the abuse by a pediatrician; the citizen who for 11 years fought the College of Dental Surgeons for redress; or the woman brutalized by Danny Perrault.
The victims are called to testify against accused in criminal proceedings and see delays, adjournments, questionable sentences and dubious Charter defences. The victims are fathers who are hounded into jail, instead of having reasonable access observed and requests for variance heard. The victims want to see restitution orders imposed when people are sentenced. They want to see community service ordered more and more as a form of sentence. They want a statement made to convicted persons that there are consequences to criminal conduct. Most of all, victims, both real and potential, want to feel that their streets, homes, schools and communities are safe.
I submit that we have all been asleep at the switch for far too long, resulting in deficit and debt and in a lack of government accountability. I mean this at all levels, hon. members, not just for the members opposite. I believe that our inattention has resulted in too much government and too little confidence in government and, most importantly, in an erosion of public confidence in the many facets of our justice system. These include self-governing bodies; sometimes the courts, unfortunately; and public institutions such as WCB and ICBC.
Even though people in general have great confidence in the police -- and well they should -- unfortunately, there are documented incidents of people having been assaulted by them. In particular, the handling of these allegations is disturbing. I'm led to believe that the particular issue I'm commenting on will be addressed by Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal when he submits his commission report at the end of this month. That is something I know all hon. members will be looking forward to.
It is easy to generate headlines regarding the tragedies suffered by innocent people in our society and to make sweeping statements about the breakdown of law and order. I would suggest that it is not easy to listen to the concerns voiced by citizens and to act. Justice is a precious commodity, and it is a cornerstone of democracy. We must act now to regain public confidence and give the streets back to the innocent victims, who should be able to use them in safety.
B. Jones: I want to thank the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for sharing his statement with me and this House this morning. It was thoughtful and, I think, a very important one to bring to the fore of the agenda for public debate. I know that all members share the feelings of compassion and sympathy that everyone feels for victims of crime in our province.
Regarding my own personal feelings, I get a very sick feeling in my stomach when I hear about the rape victim of Danny Perrault, the senseless murder of Jesse Cadman and the drive-by shooting the other day which the member mentioned. While I commend the member for bringing this issue before the House, and I think it's laudable that this issue be raised, I can't help wonder what the member recommends to address these very serious concerns. I have the even more serious impression that the member believes the solutions to these problems are simple ones. In one sentence he talked about suspected criminals and an innocent public. In fact, there are instances where suspected criminals are innocent members of the public. Given some of the comments around here in recent days, I wonder about the opposition's belief in the doctrine of presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
The member is concerned about the Young Offenders Act. We have a number of youth in the audience today. There have been many suggestions from a variety of quarters about how to deal with this problem. There have been suggestions of boot camps and whippings in public squares, as is done in Singapore. The Premier of our neighbouring province Alberta has even suggested the return of the death penalty for juveniles convicted of violent crimes. Lest I be accused of being soft on crime, let me say that I think we all agree that zero tolerance is the only policy we can have with respect to crime in our province. I'm afraid that in this debate it is easy to play on the fears of our citizens. It's easy to simplify the issues, when in fact we live in a free and democratic society that respects and cherishes individual civil liberties. We must always work hard to achieve the proper balance between our attack on crime in society and respect for those civil liberties.
Concern for public safety and victim services is number one in this province. B.C. is an acknowledged leader in victim services in this country. It funds over a hundred victim assistance programs. It spends $12 million on criminal injury compensation. It funds over 40 victim assistance organizations serving assaulted women and children. It funds 17 sexual assault centres. There is a provincewide victim information line, and just the other day, a number of family justice centres opened in this province as a pilot program. I could go on, but time doesn't permit.
There is always more that can be done. The answers are not easy, but if there are any solutions, they lie in the statement of Henry David Thoreau, who said: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." All the cops, the courts and the prisons we could ever dream up will never deal effectively with the concerns we have about crime, and violent crime in particular. As the member for Delta South said earlier, the roots that need to be hacked at are in our families, because 38 percent of violent crime is committed between family
[ Page 10625 ]
members. The roots and solutions are in how we treat our children, and in our communities, our schools, our values and our willingness to stand up for those values.
I thank the member for bringing the statement to the House today, and I hope he is willing to focus on the roots as well as the branches.
J. Dalton: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful remarks of the member for Burnaby North, and I definitely agree with his statement that the issues and solutions are not simple. I can assure the hon. member that I'm not trying to simplify them. I agree with his comment about the time-honoured presumption of innocence, which is of course a cornerstone of our democracy and our judicial system. It is not my position to make comments that are simplistic in nature. What we must all endeavour to do -- and I believe the hon. member's response endorses this -- is to bring these issues to the forefront. We've allowed these things to be taken for granted for far too long, and we cannot do that.
I have identified concerns for which I'm prepared, as at least one avenue, to submit an answer and a solution. Time does not allow me to get into detailed solutions in this morning's debate, but let me make one comment about how judicial process and court proceedings impact on the victims of offenders.
I submit that the rules of evidence and procedure need a shaking. I cite this as but one example of many where the process of dealing with justice-related issues needs re-examination. Time, as I said, does not allow me to get into the detail of the many other things I intend to take forward in the time ahead. It's time to re-evaluate the time-honoured rules of evidence admissibility, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and the too-often repeated delays in court proceedings. All members will know this saying: "Justice delayed is justice denied." I submit that that statement is even more relevant today than ever. We must re-assess the interpretation's place in the Charter of Rights; we must further encourage the courts to accept and consider victim impact statements.
[10:45]
I believe that the public is ahead of the politicians on these issues. All of us in this House must take note of public interest and concern regarding safety and justice; otherwise, I submit, we are derelict in our duties and responsibilities, with consequences to match. We too could be victims.
G. Janssen: Before I begin, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Janssen: On behalf of the member for North Island, the Attorney General, and as a former resident of Campbell River -- where the fish are almost as big as the ones in Alberni -- I would ask the House to welcome 55 grade 10 students from Robron Secondary School in Campbell River, who are here studying B.C. government history. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. John Bowers. I ask the House to make them welcome.
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
G. Janssen: I stand, for the sixth year in a row, to make my private member's statement on motorcycle awareness and safety. It is with great pleasure that I stand every year and make this statement just before or just after the annual MLA motorcycle ride. This year it took place yesterday, in spectacular weather -- unlike last year, when many of those who came here rode in very wet conditions to make their point and ensure that the event they had planned for members of this Legislature did in fact take place.
One wonders why every year the motorcycling community comes from Vancouver, the lower Fraser Valley, the interior and the north end of the Island, despite weather conditions and the long trips, taking a day off work to ride around the Legislature for 15 or 20 minutes and to talk to us about their concerns.
Motorcycling is a time-honoured sport and means of transportation. The first motorcycle was built by Daimler-Benz well before there were cars on the road and well before the famous Mercedes-Benz was producing cars. We have moved up through the ages where motorcycles now far exceed automobiles in technological advances. We have 600 cc motorcycles that can produce well over 100 horsepower and are fuelled by such innovative new products as nitrous gas, have nitrogen-filled shock absorbers and can virtually outmanoeuvre and outperform any other vehicle being manufactured today.
This creates tremendous concern for safety and awareness. Last year in British Columbia 56,728 motorcycles were licensed. There were over 80,000 class 6 licence holders in this province. Out of that, 1,371 motorcyclists were either killed or injured in British Columbia; 1,164 were injured. Injuries among car drivers were 170; 172 passengers were injured; 34 drivers were killed and one passenger was killed. ICBC paid out $12 million for motorcycle accident claims.
Most of these accidents were the result of encounters with those of us who drive automobiles. Many of the accidents resulted in comments from drivers like: "Gee, I just didn't see the motorcycle." Many motorcyclists have paid a dear price -- some with their lives. Some are paraplegics, some are disfigured.
The motorcycle community of British Columbia, through the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists and Peter Jack, advocates graduated licensing, proper attire on motorcycles, stricter licensing and testing of motorcyclists before they obtain a licence. We are working on that. Motorcyclists have also advocated -- and have sat on my desk and on the desks of various ICBC members -- a reduction in their premiums. I'm happy to say that there was a reduction in PLPD in the previous year, and this year there is a reduction in motorcycle premiums ranging from $18 for the smaller bikes to $273 for the larger machines.
Why is this significant? Full coverage for a Honda Aspencade or a Harley-Davidson Fatboy could cost well over $4,000. I believe there are members of the opposition who drive Jaguars and don't pay as much insurance for the privilege of driving those machines.
We are reducing those premiums. Why weren't they reduced before? Simply because 56,000 licensed motorcycles were considered to be too small a category to address. Now that the insurance corporation is looking at that better, breaking out those numbers and finding out who caused those accidents, we are finding that there have been irregularities in the charges. Those charges are being adjusted as the numbers are being pulled out and the identifications are being made. We must go further, and we are doing that, working through the B.C. coalition and ICBC, by spending approximately $2 million on motorcycle awareness programs. I'm sure many members in the House and many members of the public have seen the ads at bus depots, bus stops and on the sides of buses asking both motorcyclists and automobile drivers to: "See the light. Look twice." As most of you know, all motorcycles are equipped with a
[ Page 10626 ]
light that comes on when you turn on the ignition. It has been a help and an improvement. We are looking for more than that.
It has recently come to the attention of the B.C. coalition -- and they have brought it to the attention of government -- that we in British Columbia are dealing with a new type of transportation called the limited-speed motorcycle, which is basically a mountain bike with a motor attached. Under present regulations, these are identified as having no more than 50 cc or a power source that produces a maximum of 1.5 kilowatts, a maximum weight of 60 kilograms including fuel or batteries used to store energy for vehicle propulsion, and an attainable speed on level ground of 70 kilometres per hour with or without pedals. These are presently being imported from Korea and being sold. You don't require a helmet to ride one. In fact, it needn't be licensed to drive on the road, and you don't require a vehicle licence to drive one.
D. Symons: I certainly can respond in a positive manner to the words of the member. Indeed, he has spoken many times in this House, and they are words we should all be cognizant of. Having gone on the motorcycle ride for MLAs the last few years, I do feel vulnerable sitting on a motorcycle compared to sitting in a car encased in a metal support system. Across Canada, motorcyclists contribute close to $200 million per year in the motorcycle business, so it becomes a fairly large business. In B.C. there are close to 60,000 motorcycle registrations, and about 200,000 people have a class 6 licence which enables them to be in charge of a motorcycle.
The idea of Motorcycle Awareness Week is extremely important in the province. We have motorcyclists who, through necessity, have become extremely cautious as vehicle operators because they know that if they are careless, the likelihood of a driver hitting them or of something else happening is extreme. When you look at statistics, it turns out that non-motorcyclists cause about two-thirds of all accidents involving motorcyclists. So it's not the motorcyclist who is at fault, it's somebody else; it's either the driver of a car or it's some other situation, but it's not the motorcyclist. A lot of that stems from the fact that automobile drivers don't pay attention to those on motorcycles in nearly the way they should. I think the same could be said of bicyclists. I have more experience on a bicycle than on a motorcycle, but the same seems to be true -- because you're not as large and as visible as an automobile, you tend not to be in the consciousness of the drivers and the traffic flowing about you. But motorcyclists and bicyclists alike become very conscious of traffic flow; they move with it and adjust to it. I don't think drivers have yet come to the realization that they have a responsibility on the road not only to other automobile drivers but also to other vehicle users. These include motorcyclists, bicyclists and all others who are there. I think this is something that Motorcycle Awareness Week should address. I hope the province's automobile drivers will become more cognizant of their responsibility to make sure that while they're driving, they also take into account that there may a motorcycle around and that the motorcyclist has the right to occupy a lane, so that the automobile driver doesn't think he can pull up and sort of squeeze him over to the side a little. That's part of the problem also, in that the attitude of the driver is that, if they are cognizant of the motorcyclist there, to some extent they resent it and say: "They're taking space that should be mine."
Just while I mention that business of space, it's noteworthy that there are very few places in this province where parking spaces are allotted for motorcyclists. So in Victoria and Vancouver you can go up and down the streets and see parking meters of the length for a car. You do not see three parking meters that would take three bikes in one automobile spot. If we want to talk about reducing the volume of traffic, we can certainly park more motorcycles in the same space that takes a car. We have to start realizing that and maybe encouraging modes of transportation other than the automobile. Motorcycles and bicycles are one way of doing this. But we have to make sure that society and the communities adapt to these, and they haven't yet done that.
I would also like to mention two areas we should urge the government to investigate in relationship to motorcyclists, besides the parking one. One is insurance rates, as the member mentioned. It costs nearly twice as much to insure a Harley bike as it does to insure a Trans Am car; it just does not seem appropriate that somehow, in insuring a motorcycle, the insurance doesn't reflect the difference in values. Those things are being addressed, but very slowly.
The second one, which I would like to suggest, maybe to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, is that possibly they could open to motorcyclists the HOV lanes that are used for buses. The traffic on the HOV lanes is considerably less than on the main traffic thoroughfares, particularly during rush hour. If you could open these up to motorcyclists, that would allow them to be removed somewhat from the main flow of traffic and provide a degree of safety for them.
The other thing we should look at in safety is that.... There are two or three things we have to consider. The bicyclists -- the motorcyclists rather; I keep saying bicyclist because that's my forte -- should position themselves in the left lane of traffic and not necessarily....
Oh, I see my time is up.
G. Janssen: I thank, and appreciate the comments by, the opposition member. I agree with him. I would also like to encourage other members of the Legislature to perhaps look at obtaining a class 6 licence and purchasing a motorcycle. Surprisingly, this is one of the youngest Legislatures ever, but fewer members of this Legislature own motorcycles than in the last Legislature. It may be becoming an old man's sport.
I would also like to endorse what the member said about using the high-volume lanes. They are being used now by the motorcycle community -- somewhat illegally, because they're not meant for that purpose. However, in many other communities, particularly in Europe and the Asian communities, they do make use of those. It does make traffic flow much better, and perhaps would encourage more of the public to purchase smaller-cc motorcycles.
I would also like to stress the point I ended on in the first part of the speech. There's a loophole with the motorized mountain bike now being sold. We're attempting to close that loophole very quickly. Before serious accidents happen, certainly we don't want -- through a loophole in the law -- 12-year-old children riding around on motorized vehicles.
[11:00]
To end my statement, I again remind all British Columbians and members of the Legislature to be aware that this is Motorcycle Awareness Month and that the frequency of motorcycles on the highways will increase during the summer months. Look twice, see the light, and take care.
PUTTING BRITISH COLUMBIA FIRST
D. Mitchell: Earlier this week, members of this assembly were not given an opportunity to comment on the important visit to this province by the leader of the loyal and official
[ Page 10627 ]
opposition in Ottawa. Individual members did not have a chance to discuss the grievances that we as a province have with the government of Canada. However, the government of our own province should have had such an opportunity. I wonder if Mr. Bouchard's office provided an opportunity for these grievances to be heard.
Whether or not our provincial government sought the opportunity.... After all, Mr. Bouchard did draw a federal salary during the day that he was here in British Columbia promoting his book. I wonder if all Canadians who are paying his salary would have wanted to hear his message and our provincial government to have had the chance to exchange important views on matters of state with him. He should have given an opportunity to the people of British Columbia to be heard formally through our government. Alas, such an opportunity was...
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would like to ask the hon. member if he is reflecting on a matter which was decided upon in this House and which was negatived.
D. Mitchell: No.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, such an opportunity was not given when Mr. Bouchard visited British Columbia. What agenda items might there have been had our Premier had the chance to meet with Ottawa's Leader of the Official Opposition? The message to a legitimate leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons should have been that British Columbians are more than fed up with Ottawa and central Canada. They still haven't got the message that it's time to put British Columbia first. It's time that Ottawa understands that people in Canada's westernmost province are rightly raising the subject of the need for a plan for British Columbia in the event that we're forced to face the prospect of a Canada without Quebec. I'm resisting the temptation in my few minutes available today to list all of the grievances we have as a province within Confederation. Most members of this House, except perhaps some members of the Liberal opposition, could easily recite that list from memory.
Here are some of the current issues that in this year alone demonstrate the federal government's lack of commitment to British Columbia: the federal government's unwillingness yesterday to direct Via Rail to maintain the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway here on Vancouver Island; its decision not to fund the KAON facility at the University of British Columbia; its questions over the continuing funding of the TRIUMF facility at UBC, with no opportunity to replace important scientific funding to the province of British Columbia; the decision to shut down Royal Roads Military College here on Vancouver Island; the denial of British Columbia's rightful share of seats in the House of Commons through electoral redistribution. Another current issue deals with the shipbuilding industry in our province. Over the next few years $11 billion of our tax dollars are going to be spent on shipbuilding in Canada. How much will come to British Columbia? Zero -- we're getting nothing. Eleven billion is being spent in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. These are some of the topics that need to raised with Ottawa and reinforced as British Columbia's grievances.
The purpose of this statement today is to warn Ottawa and those in central Canada that storm clouds are now gathering in the west. Central Canada is running out of time in the crucial need to take seriously the grievances of western Canada and to respond more meaningfully to the alienation that grows stronger each day the farther west we move in the country. Here in British Columbia, in the west beyond the west, our fellow citizens are now fed up. While the clock ticks, our government that works on behalf of the people of British Columbia cannot sit idly by. We need to document our full list of grievances one last and final time, for those who control Canada-with-Quebec to realize that they may have to address even more serious issues in a Canada-without-Quebec. We need to submit this list to the government of Canada in a formal way, and we need to work on our own plan B for what our role would be should there be a Canada without Quebec.
I urge our provincial government to take this issue very seriously, and not to succumb to the traditional fed-bashing that has been a popular pastime in our province for so many years. We must move well beyond that. We must consider new and more aggressive ways to assert our province's legitimate interest and to put British Columbia first. For too long, Ottawa has seen British Columbia as a goblet to be drained. Year after year we pour our tax dollars into federal coffers for redistribution to other parts of Canada. And to what end? Has Ottawa addressed its own fiscal problems? No. Have other provinces in Canada that have received the benefits from British Columbia addressed their own problems and put their house in order? No, they haven't. British Columbia's continued generosity and willingness to fund irresponsible regimes elsewhere in the land is taken for granted, but no longer.
Earlier this week the pretend Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, referred to my seatmate in this House, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, as a traitor. That was a very serious charge. Why did he do that? Apparently, because the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast gave expression to the concerns, the fears, and perhaps the aspirations of many British Columbians who are concerned about this very issue. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: who's the real traitor? Isn't it far more treasonous to sit back and ignore important issues of state? The real calumny is practised by the official opposition in our assembly, who prefer to use the precious resources of this House to wallow in the gutter and crawl in the sewers of the darker side of politics, rather than to address the genuine concerns of our fellow British Columbians and the important issues regarding our future citizenship. Unfortunately, they're an embarrassment to us all.
As they await their instructions on this and other issues, they also provide ample proof that no political party can be successful in our province when it is tied so directly to a federal counterpart. No political party or group can truly stand up for British Columbia if it must subordinate itself to a parent company in far-off Ottawa. That's why British Columbians want and need independent-thinking elected representatives, made-in-B.C. parties and, above all, to put British Columbia first.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Before I recognize the hon. member in response, I would just ask the hon. member if in his remarks in his opening statement he imputed an improper motive to any member by using the expressions "treasonous" and "traitor." If so, I would advise the member that those would be unparliamentary expressions and to please withdraw them.
[ Page 10628 ]
D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if I did so, I certainly withdraw any imputation of that motive. I was simply repeating a statement made earlier this week in the House. I certainly did not intend to impugn any member of this House.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
D. Lovick: When I read Orders of the Day and discovered the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was talking on the subject of putting British Columbia first, I must confess that two things struck me: (1) how very timely; and (2) how very surprising. It's timely because we learned only yesterday, as the member pointed out, of the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway on Vancouver Island -- a decision, we all recall, that was made by a Conservative government in Ottawa, via order-in-council, which was then appealed by citizens across this province. The Supreme Court decision merely said that the government is in fact allowed to do what it did because the E&N Railway, CP and VIA and all those others don't have any statutory obligation to continue providing the service.
The point, though, is that it was a political decision on the part of the government in central Canada at the time to effectively cut B.C. loose from the service we have all taken for granted for a very long time. The Liberal government in Ottawa today, alas, seems unwilling to try to reverse that decision. My colleagues and I -- and, I suspect, all members of this chamber -- are in fact going to be pushing very hard to persuade the federal government that Via Rail should be maintained on Vancouver Island and that good service for the people of Vancouver Island should not only be maintained but also improved and upgraded so it becomes truly effective. That's the starting point.
As I said, it's timely, because yesterday the Premier of the province stood up and made a statement in the House about the very subject of Via Rail. He made the following brief point apropos the subject of the member's statement, "Putting British Columbia First." The Premier said:
"In recent months we have been witness to the federal government's lack of commitment to British Columbia. They have shut down TRIUMF-KAON. They are shutting down Royal Roads Military College. They have disbanded the Naden military band. They have closed the military base in Masset. They have denied this province its rightful share of seats in the House of Commons. They have refused to provide service and assistance to this province's shipbuilding industry. We in British Columbia say that enough is enough."
Now that sounds to me like putting British Columbia's interests first. It seems that this government, through the Premier, has done that rather well. I'm therefore a little surprised when I hear the member opposite use phrases like "sit idly by." It's hard to imagine how one can say that we're sitting idly by when we've done that.
Apropos the same point, I also noted the other day that Vaughn Palmer -- not exactly the greatest friend this government could ever wish for -- was talking about the Premier and saying that he has never seen him so angry in terms of federal-provincial relations and how they have soured so badly because of the federal government's apparent disregard for the legitimate interests of British Columbia.
In terms of the issue of provincial interests first and foremost -- of course they are. We must put them first. It's also worth noting, of course, that we are provincial legislators, and in essence, then, we put provincial interests first -- and we must.
I'm a little dismayed to discover what the member opposite is really talking about in this statement: attacking the official opposition. That's politics, and that's fair ball. But I'd like to become a little philosophical for a moment, if I might. It seems to me that perhaps the tragedy of Canada is that for a very long period of our history, provincial governments have not only put provincial interests first but have put them first to the exclusion of all others.
What is happening in Quebec today malheureusement -- unfortunately -- is that Quebec has very clearly said: "We no longer feel the same commitment to this thing called Canada, and therefore, clearly, we are putting our interests first." Lucien Bouchard, sadly, is the only leader of the official opposition in Canada's history who has said: "I am drawing my salary from the Canadian Parliament, and I have an obligation to represent all the people of Canada. Yet my mission is to take my province out of Canada." It's a horrible and frightening anomaly in Canadian politics.
Here's my final point in terms of the member. I'm a little concerned about plan B, because it sounds to me like stripping the clothes and jewelry off the corpse -- before the body died. God help us! Let's fight better than that for Canada. We deserve better for Canada than that.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the member for Nanaimo for his comments. I respect his opinions on this matter very much. But the provincial government has to do more than simply fed-bash in the traditional sense. It has to go well beyond that in asserting British Columbia's interests. That's the point of the statement I'm making today.
[11:15]
Having said that, I would like to repeat the call first made by a Vancouver columnist and former distinguished member of this assembly, Gordon Gibson, for the need for a contingency plan should the unthinkable occur -- a plan B. That's only prudent, and I think we need it. His views fit my own. We are Canadians and British Columbians, and we resent being put in the position of having to struggle with divided loyalties. We in western Canada are tired of being ignored. We need to put British Columbia first, and central Canada needs to know that we want action from a Canada with Quebec, and possibly from a Canada without Quebec.
Believe me, public opinion polls are being carried out in British Columbia today that reflect the very strong sentiments of our fellow citizens in this regard. Just last week on a radio hot-line show in Vancouver -- not a scientific poll -- only 20 percent of the callers said they were willing to keep our province in Confederation if Quebec should separate. Those are strong views, and that indifference is reflected in my own constituency. In the North Shore News this week a question was put to the person on the street by a random sampling of opinion. They were asked the question: "Are you concerned about Quebec separating from Canada?" The opinions expressed showed either a strong sentiment or an indifference. One citizen said: "I think if Quebec separates it would be better for B.C. I don't think Quebeckers care about the rest of Canada." These are the kinds of views that are very common in our province today, and it's disturbing. We need to address these, but we can't simply sleepwalk towards some uncertainty or disaster. We need to have a plan B.
Many might ask if we regard ourselves first as Canadians or as British Columbians. I think that's a false question, for we are both. We should not be trapped into some hierarchy of loyalties, because we are proud Canadians and we are also proud British Columbians. But if Canada were to change -- if the unthinkable should happen and Quebec should separate -- changing our Confederation and tearing our country apart, surely that would force all of us to reconsider our citizenship. Under those circumstances we would have
[ Page 10629 ]
to reconsider our loyalties and our patriotism. In my view, under those circumstances we would need to put British Columbia first.
LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, this legislation amends the Land Title Act to allow for the establishment of conservation covenants in British Columbia -- legislation which is long overdue. It allows people who own property in British Columbia to register a conservation covenant. People often own considerable tracts of land in British Columbia. The land is used for various purposes, and wildlife use the land as well. For example, birds in migratory patterns often stop off in certain locations throughout the province. As people wish to dispose of their land or move on in life and decide then to sell their land, they often wish that portion of their land which is so essential for wildlife to be preserved for those purposes. In the past there has been significant pressure on all governments to come forward with legislation that allows people to establish what are known as conservation covenants. This legislation will now allow that to occur.
Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to get up in Environment estimates. I hope the new hairstyle of the minister opposite improves the quality of the answers we receive in this committee, and I have absolute confidence it will.
This morning, I want to address the auditor general's value-for-money audits in the area of habitat protection. As I reviewed the auditor general's findings and the value-for-money audits, I found the was a particular concern when it dealt with the work of the ministry in habitat protection. As the minister will know, the report found that specific objectives for protecting habitat on a provincewide basis have not been established or communicated. The reasons for this include the fact that existing habitat inventory information is incomplete, and that the ministry is unwilling to state provincial objectives in a situation where it has no legal control. In addition, it does not often gather information about whether habitat protection is advised or followed, or has the desired impact on habitat.
To get the discussion going, I wonder if the minister could advise us what specific action his ministry intends to take in the coming year to deal with these very real concerns of the provincial auditor general.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to thank the hon. member for the question. We were dealing with recycling yesterday. The hon. member asked a whole series of questions relating to recycling, and I indicated I would ask staff to produce some of the material he requested. I wish to advise the hon. member that the Ministry of Environment completed a report at the end of last year which was an analysis of the three R's program in British Columbia regions outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Much of the information he was inquiring about is found in this publication. I'm not going to go through all the questions, but the information is here. It's published by the ministry. I could table the document if the hon. member wishes, or I could just refer him to it. If you don't need it, that's fine. It lays out how many tonnes...and what kind of success we're having with the various marketing programs and which regional districts are participating. It deals with the full range of issues the hon. member was referring to. I'll table it in any event, so the hon. member can review it. If he has any further questions, I'd be happy to answer those questions for him. I'll be candid: I didn't realize the report existed, either -- at least yesterday when we were doing it -- but staff obviously produced it. It attends to many of the questions and is very useful in that regard.
On the question you asked, this year we are working on regional objectives to overcome some of the deficiencies identified by the auditor general. Funding has been allocated. To be honest with you, the allocations that have been made this year for the Forest Practices Code -- which are sufficient -- also give us the ability and resources that would be necessary to work towards regional objectives. We have provincial objectives, but we do not have regional objectives.
W. Hurd: The minister will know that the auditor general came up with a series of recommendations, which I think really define an action plan for the ministry in the coming year. The auditor general talks about developing "long-term provincial objectives for the protection of habitat, based on available information. These should receive government sanction and be publicly communicated." I'm going down the list of items here.
I wonder if the minister could elaborate, in view of the fact that in this particular auditor general's report there clearly was a deficiency. Generally, the auditor general gave the ministry high marks for its involvement in other areas, but certainly zeroed in on habitat protection as an area where considerable work needed to be done. I also say that, as we look ahead in British Columbia over the next decade, the need to realize the highest standards of conservation and habitat protection is certain to become, if it is not already, one of the biggest conservation issues in the province. I certainly welcome a little more dissertation from the minister on exactly what he intends to do to address some of these specific issues in the auditor general's report.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. There are about 680 different species in British Columbia. To achieve the work that's necessary there, in terms of establishing those objectives, is certainly going to be a long-term job. I want to put that up front.
Secondly, we are doing a lot of work. Let me just go through some of the work we do. Let me put it this way: I encourage the hon. member, who obviously hasn't spent
[ Page 10630 ]
some time there, to go to the ministry building on Blanshard Street -- the wildlife component of it. The first thing that strikes you when you go over to the building there, and it certainly did for myself, is the fact that we've established a conservation data centre. I think he would benefit from talking to the staff there about the rather detailed work they do, which takes the information we get from the field and tracks it -- it takes the information that we get when we place devices on animals, so we can better track their progress. We have work underway in the conservation data centre.... It's linked here in Victoria and throughout the province in a very significant way, in terms of the technologies that have been developed. If you actually go down there and see it, it's far more impressive than someone trying to explain it to you as I am in the House. I've spent some time down there, and I have to tell you that the way in which the ministry is able to do that work is very impressive.
We are establishing through that data centre -- with many partners, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Nature Trust, both of them first-class, non-profit organizations and very complementary of government -- a repository of all available information on rare and threatened species and habitats. That should be noted.
[11:30]
Secondly, in order to do a better job of protecting some of these species -- the hon. member talked about the need to conserve and protect -- we as a government have been engaged in two exciting initiatives since I've been minister. One is the South Okanagan wildlife management area. I believe about a third of the red-listed species in all of British Columbia are situated in that region around Osoyoos. Most recently I had the pleasure of declaring that area to be a wildlife management area, which allows us to do a better job both in conservation and preservation of the natural resource. The other one, which I've talked about in the past in the House during these estimates, is the Creston Valley management area.
The other thing that I should elaborate on is the fact that we do have the habitat conservation fund, which, again, is a fund that supports projects to deal with threatened species. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the work that we're doing in the Forest Practices Code with regard to biodiversity concerns is a further element of our initiatives. Hopefully, that gives you a better overview of what we're doing in light of the comments by the auditor general.
W. Hurd: By definition we may be forced, during the course of this discussion on habitat protection, to get into some more philosophical issues. The minister will know from reviewing the auditor general's report that he identified a real gap in the legislation that currently exists to protect habitat in the province. He talked particularly about the fact that municipalities and regional districts have some overlapping responsibilities for habitat protection. It's important in this discussion to separate protection of habitat from protection of species, which continues to be a function of the ministry.
Can the minister give us an idea what steps he intends to take in the coming year to liaise with other levels of government -- and perhaps talk to the federal Environment department about habitat protection? The auditor general clearly identified a gap in the legislation and the areas that the various governments have to protect habitat in the province.
For the six- to eight-month period that I have been critic, I have been struck by the number of letters I've received from residents and fish enhancement societies concerned about encroaching development from municipalities, for example. To their dismay, they found that there appeared to be no means of protecting habitat within existing legislation. I wonder if the minister could advise us -- perhaps looking over the longer term -- whether the problem has been identified by the ministry and what steps we can expect.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to this issue, we are doing a fair bit of work to deal in particular with some of the overlapping-jurisdiction issues, which I believe was the issue that you raised at the outset. For example, we work very closely now with the Department of Fisheries to deal with fish species and conservation of habitat on that side. You asked what we've done with regard to jurisdictional issues. Most recently I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Tobin to discuss some of these fish issues.
On the wildlife side of it, the federal minister responsible is Mr. Dupuy. I met with him about four weeks ago and corresponded with him again yesterday. We are dovetailing our activities in a far more efficient way on the wildlife service side, which falls within his mandate. I should also say that the two of us discussed ways in which we can achieve greater harmonization, given the fact that there are fiscal pressures on all our governments.
Thirdly, the initiative that I just announced in the Legislature prior to the commencement of estimates was legislation that deals with conservation covenants. That is a third initiative that addresses the points raised in that report.
Watershed restoration is a part of the forest renewal activities we announced. I regret that your party will not support that, but I'm sure most British Columbians will.
W. Hurd: Maybe we can focus the discussion by reading into the record the recommendations of the auditor general. That might enable us to have a clearer view of whether the urgent concerns raised by the auditor general are going to be addressed by the ministry in the coming fiscal year. The auditor general expressed a serious concern that the ministry should complete its habitat inventory and the systems for accessing and updating it as soon as possible. The cause of protecting habitat is only as good the information the ministry has at its disposal. Perhaps the minister could advise the committee whether the ministry intends -- in the foreseeable future or even in the current fiscal year -- to complete its habitat inventory and engage in some measure of spending within this budget to update its accessing and systems information for this planning function within the ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: In this year's budget we've allocated an additional $5 million to $6 million for the corporate resource inventory system that we've established. That feeds into the conservation date centre, which allows us to overcome some of the concerns expressed by the auditor general.
W. Hurd: Referring further to the auditor general's recommendations, as the minister knows, there was a suggestion that the ministry should work more closely with the Ministry of Forests. Obviously this is a huge additional responsibility for the Ministry of Environment in the coming fiscal year. This recent dovetailing of activities with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment appears to have taken over some of the functions for addressing forestry guidelines and those types of initiatives.
I wonder if the minister could tell us how much additional cost his ministry is going to be facing during the fiscal year in order to work together with the Ministry of Forests on some of these fish-forestry issues in the province.
[ Page 10631 ]
As we moved into the last half of the fiscal year '93-94, it certainly appeared that there was a meshing of the two ministries. I wonder if the minister could advise us how much additional manpower and fiscal responsibilities are going to accrue as a result of the increased activity, looking ahead to the Forest Practices Code and beyond, when there will be additional work for the ministry in areas that were traditionally within the purview of the Ministry of Forests.
Hon. M. Sihota: I feel quite confident in saying that in the history of the province there has never been the kind of relationship that now exists between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. I have to congratulate the Minister of Forests on his willingness to make sure that the environmental ethic is a central consideration in the development of forest activities and policy. I think the public demands that. The public is saying over and over again that we can't take our forest land base for granted in the fashion that we have, that there are environmental problems, and that government should deal with them. And we are. The forest renewal plan and the Forest Practices Code are examples of two initiatives that we have taken. As Forests critic, the hon. member knows that there are others as well.
If I interact with any minister in cabinet it's with the Minister of Forests. That is where the bulk of my time goes, and 80 percent of the time of my officials in the appropriate component of the wildlife side is on that basis. The amount in question that you referred to is $6 million; the number of people is 54. In some ways, I think that's just the beginning as we deal with the interrelationship between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Finally, let me say that because there is greater harmony between the two ministries, there is also scope for efficiencies. Some of those efficiencies can be secured on the conservation side, and that's occurring as well. For example, in the past a conservation officer would go out there to take a look at a problem with regard to habitat and notice that there was also a problem with regard to logging activity in the province. He'd have to phone up the Forest Service and they'd send somebody else out there. Under the discussion paper that we've just put out on the Forest Practices Code, which will soon be before this House in terms of legislation, we are proposing that one conservation officer should be able to do all of the work that is necessary. If a stop-work order, a fine or an administrative penalty has to be issued with regard to forest activity, the conservation officer should be able to do it without having to send in a Forest Service worker. This means that the repertoire that's available to government to deal with these environmental issues in the forests is enhanced simply by these administrative efficiencies.
J. Sawicki: I thought this might be a good opportunity to stand up, because the minister has mentioned conservation officers and I have some questions about them that might be timely at this point. I really commend the minister and the Minister of Forests for working together much more closely, especially out in the field, on these issues. As we know, the issue of conservation officers was a big concern a couple of years ago. One of the first decisions this government made was to increase the number of conservation officers so that all British Columbians could be assured that they actually had the resources to do their really important work throughout the province -- monitoring and enforcement, controlling poaching and ensuring that people have proper fishing and hunting licences. I was really pleased that a number of new positions were created at that time. But what I'd like to ask the minister is: with the new work that these conservation officers are taking on in terms of looking at industrial infractions and working with the Ministry of Forests on forest infractions, is the role of the conservation officer changing? What is happening to their traditional role in terms of monitoring and enforcing wildlife issues in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's an excellent question.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want all the members of the House to know that excellence in questions is something that cuts across party lines. I've been happy to acknowledge excellent questions from the Reform Party and the Social Credit Party. I don't think I've done that with the Liberals, but that's to be expected.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: But now that I've got the support of some members of the House for that statement, let me move on. It is an excellent question, because it is a salient concern. It's something that many people inquire of me as I make my way through the province; it is perhaps one of the most frequently asked questions -- and it should be, because it's a legitimate concern. We'll have the conservation officers continue to do the good work that they have always done, and that will be a good component of their responsibilities. I'm pleased to say that in this year's budget we will be adding to our complement of conservation officers. Under our government, the previous Minister of Environment -- my predecessor, the now-Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- hired additional conservation officers in the first year of his mandate, reversing a trend of decreasing conservation officers which had been established by the previous government. He added about six or eight new conservation officers, if memory serves me right, and we will be adding to that number under this budget.
We will be looking at communities in the Cariboo, the northwest portion of British Columbia and the north Island, at the least, in terms of new conservation officers. We want to make sure that the new responsibilities in forest activity that we are placing on them do not subsume all of their time and that additional resources are there. Money has been allocated for that purpose. We expect hiring to occur relatively soon. As we go through and watch progress on the issues, we may indeed embellish those services over the course of the year. Both the Minister of Forests and I have had discussions in that regard.
[11:45]
What I am saying is that not only is it an excellent question but a very legitimate concern. As I met with staff throughout the province, I received that question over and over again. I'm pleased to say that we have crafted a system sufficient to attend to that concern through the hiring of additional conservation officers to complement the work being done in forest activity and other areas by existing conservation officers.
J. Sawicki: I appreciate the minister's assurances. I'm really pleased to hear that more conservation officers will be hired.
My point is that the amount of work needed out there in terms of industrial infractions and the proposed work on forest infractions could probably take up 100 percent of the
[ Page 10632 ]
time of all the conservation officers that we've got -- and maybe even of the new ones being hired. My concern is from a number of different angles. Perhaps it also takes a different kind of expertise out there.
My concern comes right back to the traditional role of the conservation officer. Budgets are tight; we know that. Perhaps we can't provide the field staff we would like in any ministry. But the reality is that there are still many areas of the province where conservation officers can't even visit a recreational lake once during the entire fishing season, let alone do the work of educating and just being out there talking with people. We need to build up that cooperative spirit in the rural communities, whereby the people who live there actually know the conservation officers and can talk to them and keep them alert about some of the problem areas or infractions that may be happening. Conservation officers don't have the time to go out and do the communication and building of trust that they will need to rely on in order to do their jobs.
I just want to ask the minister if he could be a little more specific to ensure that all of these really new and exciting roles for the conservation officers out there will not compromise the real work that still needs to be done. In terms of enforcement, we are still very far behind.
I'll give the minister an example. Another very good move of this government was to ban the sale of animal parts, such as bear parts. But unless conservation officers have the time to implement those policies, we won't have accomplished the things we tried to do. Could the minister be a little more explicit in assuring this House that the traditional role of the conservation officer will not fall by the wayside but will in fact be expanded? We still have a lot of work to do there, as well as on industrial and forestry infractions.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with the hon. member. We do not want to jeopardize the traditional role of conservation officers in British Columbia. I feel the pressure of that concern enormously and have made it clear to conservation officers that those traditional responsibilities should continue. I also recognize that we are placing forest practices work on their plate. I have indicated that in order to assist and to alleviate that pressure, we will hire new conservation officers. I'm prepared, in light of the hon. member's question, to indicate this much at this stage: this year we will hire at least eight new conservation officers in British Columbia to attend to the workload. I think that should give the hon. member some comfort. In terms of an increase in one year, we have not hired that number previously. Over the past three years our government has increased the number of conversation officers in the province. We now have about 148, and we expect to increase that complement.
Our feedback is that the community is pleased with the direction we're going in. It reverses the trend of previous administrations, which just hacked away these vital services and cut programs strongly supported by rural communities throughout British Columbia. People see the value of having conservation officers out there and value the work they're going to do.
I'll be candid. If I could hire more, I would hire more. There's a limit to our budget, but we're moving in the right direction. We're going to see how this works, in terms of new activities on the forest side. If it is not sufficient, then we're prepared to do more. I want to make that abundantly clear to the hon. member, because I've shared my concerns not only with my colleagues in cabinet but particularly with my colleague, the Minister of Forests. As I went through the regional offices in Smithers and Nanaimo, and in other areas of the province, I've heard what my staff are telling me in terms of the need for conservation officers.
We responded through the hiring of additional officers. This will allow them to continue with their traditional work and to perform some additional work in forestry. We hope to spread the workload of existing conservation officers by having the new officers in there. We will strategically place these conservation officers around the province where the need is the greatest.
L. Fox: This is in an area that I have addressed in the last two estimates, and I thank the previous member for entering into this area of discussion. I'm not in a position to argue in terms of the numbers that have been placed -- whether or not they were shrunken by previous governments or expanded by this government. But I do know that within my riding, one of the major difficulties in wildlife management has been the emphasis placed on the conservation officer inspecting and working on other environmental issues rather than spending time on wildlife management. We've placed a lot of emphasis in our conservation officers' workday on environmental issues other than wildlife management.
In my home community there are two conservation officers who look after a tremendous, vast geographic area, where there is a lot of wildlife -- or there used to be a lot of wildlife. Certainly there's a lot of hunting activity and a need for follow-up and enforcement, not just on poaching but on other issues. The minister suggested earlier that there were going to be eight new conservation officers put into service. I congratulate him on that. I would like to hear from the minister that there's going to be a new emphasis on wildlife management, so that we have more dollars available to accommodate the travel needed by these conservation officers. In many cases, individuals haven't had the dollars to get into their areas. In other parts of the ministry, particularly in the Lands division, they can hire a helicopter to go look at a dock or an assessment value. The conservation officer hasn't the money available to inspect a cariboo herd or whatever. So I'm looking, first, for new emphasis on wildlife management, and second, expansion of the dollars available to those individuals so they can carry out their jobs in rural British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: We are not seeking to diminish the responsibilities for wildlife of conservation officers in the province. We recognize that they do an admirable job on wildlife-related issues; we have to continue to ensure they do that. We have asked them to take on new responsibilities under the Forest Practices Code. That's also essential not only to wildlife but also to the priorities of government in terms of making sure that we manage our forest resources adequately.
There were a number of things I had to do. One, I had to get more efficiencies, which I proposed to do by working more closely with the Forest Service on forest issues. Our people out there shouldn't have to come back in and spend time getting the Forest Service to look at the issue; they should be able to issue stop-work orders and the like, themselves. Two, I added considerably more staff. That continues the trend the government has established. Three, the last thing we would cut is travel for conservation officers. If we get into a tight budgetary spot, that is the last item reached for, which protects the integrity of the conservation officer system that we have in the province.
[A. Hagen in the chair.]
[ Page 10633 ]
W. Hartley: I would like to ask the minister some questions related to my riding of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, one of the faster-growing municipalities in British Columbia. I appreciate the increase in conservation staffing by the ministry. Many people in our area have looked forward to this increase for some time, and they welcomed the addition of a conservation officer to the area. I know that it's important to all British Columbians.
I would like to discuss a couple of important birds in our province. The great blue heron is under a lot of pressure due to the loss of nesting sites through development pressures, and I understand that the ministry has been studying this problem. The area of Pitt Meadows suffered a tremendous loss of a major heronry in 1991, and I know the ministry has been seriously looking at this problem since then. In addition to the great blue heron, the greater sandhill crane has made the Pitt Polder area its home for several years and is now nearing extinction. There are some ten cranes remaining in the polder and possibly a few in Burns Bog and on the Langley side of the Fraser River. Again, I understand that the ministry has been doing some work related to the sandhill crane.
[12:00]
The Pitt Polder wildlife management area has a tremendous attraction for all British Columbians. There has been a lot of concern for these waterfowl expressed by the major environmental groups and many of the public, who have enjoyed walking on the dikes in Pitt Polder for many years. The numbers of waterfowl continue to decline in the area. That also includes birds such as short-eared owls and a variety of ducks.
I would appreciate whatever comment the minister would like to make with regard to this subject.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're not sure whether any of the species you mentioned are on our endangered list and what the status of our recovery programs are with regard to those species. I will get that information for you and put it on the record. I thank you for the question, but at this point we don't have sufficient material here to answer the question.
W. Hartley: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to that data.
Hon. Chair, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Bugler, a teacher from Maple Ridge Secondary. He has more than 30 students with him today from grades 8 to 12. They are here to understand the process of government and to tour the area. Please give them all a great welcome.
W. Hurd: Before continuing, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: On behalf of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I am pleased to welcome a group of 25 students from Noel Booth Elementary School and their teacher, Mr. Amado. I know they're in the precincts, so I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. Chair, I want to further discuss the pressure on habitat protection staff in the branch offices, which has been talked about by other members. The minister will be aware that the auditor general expressed serious concern about the increasing pressure on habitat protection staff who have found themselves participating in these various multi-agency, multi-stakeholder planning groups that are currently ongoing. The CORE process was mentioned as well as the land and resource management planning process, which is a joint function of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. In view of the fact that the demand for regional staff to participate in these processes is likely to increase in the future, is the minister confident that the addition of eight conservation officers will be enough to compensate? I think it's a relevant question, because as we look at the CORE report for Vancouver Island, we see a designation of regionally significant lands, which does envisage some level of forest harvesting -- but only after a number of other values are protected. It seems that if this particular designation on Vancouver Island were to proceed, it would place a tremendous strain on ministry staff to weight these other values such as biodiversity and wildlife habitat enhancement. So I wonder whether the minister feels that perhaps this additional function of his ministry, this additional demand, could have the effect of compromising its ability to engage in activities that protect habitat in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're doing a lot more than.... You're picking up on one conversation that we were having in here, and I guess that's to be expected. There are a couple of points. First of all, if you ask me whether or not the addition of eight is going to do the trick, my own sense is that if it doesn't, then we will deal with that problem in a positive way. I'm prepared to announce eight today; I think that speaks for itself. Second, I didn't say, and perhaps I should have, that we will also have 46 new forest ecosystem specialists. In other words, each forest district in the province will now have an ecosystem specialist; 21 of those are new this year, and 25 were new last year. That will assist us in dealing with some of these needs.
Third, in terms of the wildlife enhancement budget, that budget has increased in the last couple of years; again, that is a reflection of our priorities. But I want you to understand that when I said eight conservation officers, I gave a lot of thought as to whether I should even say that here in the House, because that can be taken in a number of ways. That is the number I am prepared to refer to now. I want hon. members in this House to understand that if that does not do the trick, then there will be other adjustments forthcoming from government.
W. Hurd: I have a further series of questions about the involvement of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment in forest cutblock planning in the province. As the minister knows, the Ministry of Forests' small business forest enterprise program is the province's largest single cutblock holder, in terms of the annual allowable harvest they're responsible for. One assumes that they are responsible for wildlife management planning and stream protection -- a number of studies that they would have to undertake before their cutblocks would be approved. Can the minister tell us what funding transfer occurs when those studies are done? Is it the total financial responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, or is the Ministry of Environment expected to contribute to these studies? That would be my first question.
My second question would be: what kind of auditing is done with the ministry-to-ministry wildlife management plan, for example, which might be filed before harvesting could take place?
[ Page 10634 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I didn't hear your second question, so I'll just deal with your first one. If you would, restate your second question. We provide whatever information we have now concerning inventory to the Ministry of Forests, and we also review their forest plans to make sure we have adequate input on the development of those strategies.
W. Hurd: I'll ask my second question later. Perhaps I can ask a question that was posed by the auditor general about the number of staff with the ministry in Victoria and the number in the field. The auditor general noted that approximately 36 percent of his total staff were in branch offices in Victoria, with about 64 percent of the staff in the field. Given that the difficulties out there are occurring in branch offices which have responsibility for habitat protection, is the minister satisfied with that ratio of staff? Does there need to be 36 percent of the total staffing of the ministry in Victoria branch offices? In these difficult economic times, has he given any thought to allocating some of those resources away from Victoria and redesignating some into regional offices in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: All the new incremental resources applied to this year's budget are going to regions. That's the first point. That gives you an indication of my thinking on it. Secondly, the relationship between the operation in Victoria and the regional operations is something we are constantly reviewing to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are being expended in an efficient way. I recognize your point, and I hope you recognize mine in terms of what I've just said about new incremental resources.
W. Hurd: I referred earlier to the small business forest enterprise program under the Ministry of Forests. The minister will be aware that a private auditor uncovered some serious problems on Vancouver Island with respect to the meeting of fish and forestry protection guidelines in the field. He will also be aware that some of these small business enterprise cutblocks failed to make the grade when the audit was conducted. Since the Ministry of Forests would be fiscally responsible for doing wildlife management planning, I'm wondering what steps the minister has taken in addressing the results of that audit. It indicated clearly that the information on file with the ministry was simply not being met in the field by another ministry.
This speaks to the whole question of the auditing done on the plans that are filed not just by private licensees in the province but by the ministry itself. Are these plans self-regulatory? Is it a requirement of the licensee -- in this case, the small business forest enterprise program -- to submit a plan and have it subjected to a spot audit by an outside auditing agency? What auditing function is done by the Ministry of Environment on plans that are submitted with respect to wildlife or fish protection?
Hon. M. Sihota: The audit I believe you're referring to was initiated by government, and all of the audits were undertaken jointly by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. As a result of those audits, there was some action and charges were laid in some instances. That was as a result of work that was done by the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment in concert. As I said earlier, that close relationship is relatively unprecedented in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can make it a little more basic. When a forest licensee submits a five-year development plan, for example, and part of that development plan is a wildlife management study or a habitat study, if it's required, how is the information verified? Is it the subject of inspection by field staff after the block has been cut? Is it a spot audit, such as the Tripp audit?
It just seems to me that if the licensee -- and even if it's the small business enterprise program -- is responsible for submitting the plan and the ministry is merely pushing paper instead of actually doing the on-site audits, it's almost a self-regulatory system. What happens to those plans when they're submitted? Are they reviewed by ministry staff? What steps are taken to ensure that what's in the plan is actually being undertaken on the land base?
Hon. M. Sihota: A large percentage of those are reviewed by ministries. Secondly, the audits are ongoing.
W. Hurd: I'm a little disappointed the minister hasn't chosen to elaborate more on the auditing process that's available. Clearly, the minister had a lot to say in the wake of the Tripp fisheries forestry audit on Vancouver Island, which was an independent auditing process. It obviously uncovered serious deficiencies, in what was actually happening out on the land base, from the plans on file with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. I'll ask the question again. In the minister's mind, what good does it do to push paper and submit plans when an independent audit goes out there and finds such a variance from what's on file with the various ministries?
[12:15]
I go back to the auditor general's concerns that these initiatives are diverting the resources of the ministry into receiving reports, pushing paper and administering their own reports, and that nothing appears to be happening on the land base in the way of a comprehensive auditing process. Can the minister at least give us the assurance that the Tripp auditing process, for example, will be done on a six-month or one-year basis? What does he envisage for the auditing and monitoring process on the land base?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the member wants elaboration, he's going to get some. I've observed during the course of these estimates something I've never observed in the time I've been a Member of the Legislature, sitting either on the opposition or the government side. Never have I participated in a set of Environment estimates and witnessed the absence of an Environment critic. The Liberal member for Matsqui is their Environment critic, and he hasn't been here throughout all of these estimates, except for a very short time period. I know that hurts....
The Chair: The member rises on a point of order.
W. Hurd: The minister well knows that referring to the presence or absence of another hon. member in the House is certainly not acceptable. I know he didn't mean to malign the hon. member for Matsqui, and I'm sure he'll take that remark back.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know whether certain members are out practising law or engaging in double-dipping in terms of their school board responsibilities. But I want to say that the hon. member, as Forests critic, should know -- because the Environment critic hasn't participated in the debate, which is astounding -- that this government brought forward the Forest Practices Code in the form of a discussion
[ Page 10635 ]
paper that we released last November, I believe. It is predicated on the findings that have flowed out of the Tripp audit reports. The first and second audit report identified inadequacies in the way in which forest activity was occurring in certain areas of this province and the degree to which environmental degradation was occurring, if I could put it that way -- or at least the degree to which damage was occurring to streams and fish. Unlike any other government in the history of this province, we responded with the Forest Practices Code, which we have said will be tabled imminently in this House. I want the hon. member to understand that. It will change the way in which we manage our forests, and it will be followed up with tough enforcement.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Today I have indicated that on the side of enforcement, there will be additional conservation officers, there will be 43 ecosystem specialists in forest districts in the province, and there will be new efficiencies between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests in order to be able to do this work.
The hon. member, who I am sure has taken the time to read the discussion paper with regard to the Forest Practices Code, knows full well that there will be fines of up to $1 million for infractions to the environment as a result of forest activity -- unprecedented in the history of British Columbia. The hon. member, who I am confident has taken some time to read the outstanding paper the government has prepared in terms of the Forest Practices Code, should know that it is proposed that conservation officers will have the unprecedented ability to issue stop-work orders when they witness damage in the forest lands of British Columbia -- unprecedented in terms of their ability to issue administrative fines and penalties. Those kinds of changes, hon. member, are long overdue in British Columbia, and this government is responding.
If I look at the pattern we've seen from the opposition, they will oppose the Forest Practices Code, just like they opposed the forest renewal plan. It's an outstanding plan that provides jobs in communities, sustains forest communities and says to the people who live in forest communities in this province that we are on your side and we believe your communities have a future. We say to those forest communities, through the forest renewal plan, that we think the whole idea of logging should change so that work is done not only in cutting the wood but in planting, thinning and reharvesting the forest and getting more value-added functions out of the wood we cut so that we create more jobs for every tree we cut in British Columbia. Under that plan we expect that 6,000 new jobs will be created in an industry where we have seen 27,000 jobs lost over the last decade and a half.
Much to my amazement, this $2 billion plan, which has the support of unions, industry and environmentalists, lacks the support of the opposition. They do not see the wisdom of the kind of change we are trying to bring forward in forest activity in British Columbia. They want to go back to the old days that preceded the Tripp report. That would allow for streams to be damaged, for fish habitat to be injured and for erosion and inadequate replanting to occur.
I said earlier in these estimates -- and I will say it again today -- that the one thing that becomes evident the more I sit through debate in this House is the fact that the opposition is on the side of the rich and powerful. They want to go back to those dark ages that have given this province a blemish and are causing us a series of problems overseas.
The hon. member should understand that things are changing; we are changing the way in which we manage our forests. We are saying -- and he should know this as he asks his question, because I expect him to be an informed Forests critic -- that we are proposing to have spot audits under the Forest Practices Code. The hon. member asks whether they're going to occur every six months or every year. I'm telling the hon. member that things are changing in British Columbia; there will be spot audits. We won't pick up the phone and tell the company: "We're going to be over there tomorrow, so you better clean up your act." The fear of those audits will inevitably force companies to rethink their practices.
We are proposing under the Forest Practices Code -- again, I would assume that, as Forests critic, the hon. member has taken the time to read that outstanding paper -- to move to a regime of performance-based logging. Before you can go ahead and cut at the next level or area where you've got authority to cut, we will evaluate what you've done in the past, and your permission to cut will be predicated on your performance in the past. Performance-based logging is a notion that I know is alien to the political right in British Columbia which the hon. member represents, but it's a notion embraced by all British Columbians -- except, of course, the Liberal opposition, which has voted against the forest renewal plan and, I am sure from this line of questioning, is setting the stage to vote against the Forest Practices Code.
There will be change in the way we manage our forests; there will be tough enforcement and additional resources through the forest renewal plan, through this budget and through the budget of the Ministry of Forests. They are the kinds of changes that British Columbians are demanding and deserve; they are the kinds of changes that have been long overdue. As we wrap up the debate this week, I think it must astound and amaze British Columbians that the Liberal opposition in Victoria -- I'll give the Socreds and the Reform some credit -- voted in principle against the forest renewal plan. I look forward to doing a little plant-gating this weekend and next week outside some of the sawmills and forest operations in British Columbia. The hon. member wants to know....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I have spoken to forest workers in Williams Lake, in Nelson, in Castlegar and in camps from one end of the province to the other, and I would advise the hon. member who now has to resort to heckling -- shamed by the fact that his party voted against the forest renewal plan -- that he should recognize that things are changing in British Columbia. Only one political party is out of touch with the needs of forest communities in British Columbia, and that's the opposition.
This program, which is embraced and applauded -- and I'd be happy to come in here with every one of the press clippings from every forest community in British Columbia -- by forest communities from one end of the province to the other; applauded by forest workers, members of the IWA and non-union members as well; applauded by environmental interests; and applauded by the likes of Peter Bentley and others on the part of industry. The forest renewal plan has people's confidence and says to people that we believe in you, we believe in forest communities and we believe in sustainable forests, sustainable communities and a
[ Page 10636 ]
future for young people in forest activity in British Columbia. This plan has been greeted with both joy and relief to offset some of the legitimate fear and anxiety on the part of working people in British Columbia, and it has won the support of every member of this House, save the 15 members -- or whatever number it is -- of the Liberal Party opposite. They're out of touch.
I want the hon. member to know that this will go down as the greatest political blunder on the part of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. As we go around this province and get the message out to British Columbians that the Liberals voted against the very plan that gives forest workers a future, gives forest communities some element of sustainability and some hope, and shows them that there's some confidence: $2 billion over three years, 6,000 new jobs, reversing the trend in job loss and changing the way in which we manage our forests.... It will shock British Columbians to know that this Liberal opposition -- founded very much as it is, situated as it is and very much representing urban centres in British Columbia.... Their non-support of the forest renewal plan will go down as their greatest political blunder.
With that said, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hope all members will have a restful, enjoyable and peaceful weekend.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]