Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12703 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First, let me advise members that the House will sit tomorrow. In fact, it will sit tomorrow morning -- and probably this morning as well.

To begin the debate, I call second reading of Bill 56.

FOREST LAND RESERVE ACT

Hon. A. Petter: It is with tremendous pleasure that I take part in second reading debate on the Forest Land Reserve Act. This act forms an important component of this government's commitment to renew our forests and secure the future of forest workers and forest-based communities. During the course of this session, members have certainly been made aware of the seriousness with which this government approaches its determination to ensure that the future of our forests and our forest-based communities is made secure.

We have debated the Forest Practices Code, which is aimed at changing the way we manage our forests to bring about better standards of forest stewardship and a tougher regime of enforcement, to ensure that the forest resource is well-managed for future generations and to restore public confidence in the management of that resource.

We have debated the forest renewal plan, which looks to an economic vision of the future that has at its centre the forest resource and forest-based communities, and sees incredible opportunities to revitalize those communities and the forest economy through a reinvestment in the land and in value-added manufacturing -- essentially, putting back into the forests some of the wealth previously taken out of the forests, to ensure that the forests are there for the future and that their value continues to create jobs, wealth and security for British Columbians.

Another key element of this government's commitment and plan to renew our forests and secure the future of forest-based communities and forest workers relates to the need to achieve greater certainty and stability around land use. Members are certainly aware of the initiatives this government has taken with respect to land use planning, aimed at achieving greater certainty and stability regarding the future of our forests. Through the CORE process and the land and resources management planning processes, this government has set in motion processes aimed at resolving years of accumulated conflict, which has created instability for the future of our forests and our forest-based communities. These processes are aimed at reversing that instability by achieving land use plans that people can depend upon for our future.

Obviously, a very important step in this direction was taken on June 22, when this government announced a land use plan for Vancouver Island. The plan was developed after a number of years of consultation, listening to communities and, following the report from the commissioner on resources and environment, a further period of careful evaluation and thorough review by the government before releasing a plan that seeks to achieve stability and certainty, and to map an economic vision for the future of forestry and forest-based communities on Vancouver Island. It's a land use plan that speaks not just to the need to preserve protected areas for future generations but also to the need to ensure that the commercial forest land base is preserved as a commercial forest land base for forestry and other renewable resource use for the economies of the communities on Vancouver Island.

Much attention has been given to aspects of the plan that created 23 new protected areas, and certainly that aspect of the plan deserves attention. Many of those areas are highly significant. If they were not protected, we would not have an adequate representation of west coast temperate rain forest within our protected areas system -- like the Walbran, the upper Carmanah, the lower Tsitika and the Tahsis-Kwois.

Just as important as the protected areas component of the Vancouver Island land use decision is the component of the decision that speaks to the future of our commercial forest lands and the need to ensure that those forest lands are adequately defined and protected in terms of the economic base they provide to residents of Vancouver Island, particularly those who live in forest-dependent communities and rely upon the forest, its forest resources and other resources for their livelihoods and the livelihoods of future generations.

A key component of that plan was to achieve greater certainty over the working commercial forest. In order to achieve that certainty, the plan that was released by the government spoke of the need to ensure that we had a mechanism in place that would both identify and secure the future of those commercial forest lands. We recognize very well that if we are to ensure good, long-term forest jobs in this province and foster long-term economic and social stability for forest communities, we must act now to establish a secure land base for commercial forestry activities and other resource activities. Certainly that's a message that has been brought home to me, in my tenure as Forests minister. People want to see greater stability. They understand that that stability will come only if we live up to our commitment on ecological areas and protected areas, but they also are desirous that that commitment incorporate the need to achieve stability in the component of the land base that is designated for future commercial activities.

Our government is acting in pursuance of the Vancouver Island land use plan and of our larger commitment to land use planning to make sure that that mechanism is there so that future generations can look to the commercial forest base and forest companies and forest communities of today can look to that base in order to know what land will be available for commercial forestry and where investments can be made. That's what Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act, which I'm presenting for second reading today, is all about.

Bill 56 creates a forest land reserve in British Columbia that will ensure that the commercial forest lands are protected for responsible, sustainable forestry and other resource uses, and that those lands will not be depleted by ill-considered urban development. Those lands will be there as a designated component of the land base, with a measure of security that forest communities, forest companies and forest workers can depend upon now and in the future. The forest land reserve will include Crown lands and private managed forest lands. Protected areas, agricultural lands and all private lands other than private managed forest lands will not be included in the reserve. In keeping with integrated resource management 

[ Page 12704 ]

principles, land in the forest land reserve will be available for a range of forest-related uses, which include timber production; forage production; wildlife and livestock grazing; forest- or wilderness-oriented recreation; scenery and wilderness purposes; approved mineral exploration and mining purposes; water, fisheries, wildlife and biological diversity; and other, cultural heritage purposes.

The Forest Land Reserve Act also enables B.C.'s Forest Practices Code to apply to private lands within the reserve following a period of consultation with private land owners, and in that way it works in conjunction with the new Forest Practices Code to ensure that good, sustainable forest practices are observed within the private lands that will be encompassed by the forest land reserve.

Hon. Speaker, let me outline some of the important provisions in this act. I'll deal just with the highlights, knowing that we'll have a chance for more detailed debate when we get to committee stage.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

First of all, with respect to Crown lands, under the Forest Land Reserve Act the provincial government will have the power to designate Crown lands into the forest land reserve. It's our intention that those designations will be made following regional land use processes such as the Vancouver Island CORE plan or the land and resources management plans. Once land use planning has taken place and we have a more certain understanding of what the commercial forest land base should be, we will then be in a position, under this act, to make the appropriate designations of Crown lands into the forest land reserve to provide the measure of security that I think British Columbians are looking for as a result of land use planning processes with respect to the commercial forest land base. I can already tell you that in the case of Vancouver Island the legislation will be used to designate all eligible Crown lands into the forest land reserve, and that is consistent with our government's land use plan for Vancouver Island.

[10:15]

In addition, the act provides for the automatic inclusion of nearly one million hectares of private managed forest land in the province within the forest land reserve. Owners of other private forest lands, not currently classified as private managed forest lands, may also apply to have their land included within the reserve, if they so choose. The category of private managed forest lands is based upon the commitments of the owners of that land to manage their lands for long-term commercial forestry, in exchange for which they receive considerable tax benefits. The vast majority of those lands are owned by major forest companies. In fact, 75 percent of the land is held by four companies and, indeed, the number of owners of all private managed forest land totals about 100 -- contrary to some of the numbers that have been bandied about by others.

Most of these private managed forest lands -- indeed, 73 percent -- are on Vancouver Island. For the most part, they correspond with lands that were granted in exchange for the construction of that great E&N Railway, which we were promised in perpetuity. Whether the railroad will be there in perpetuity remains in doubt, but thanks to this legislation we can be much more secure that the forest land base represented by those grants will be here in perpetuity.

Looking at both Crown lands and private managed forest lands, this act means that 81 percent of the land on Vancouver Island, and more than 91 percent of the productive forest land on Vancouver Island, will be within the forest land reserve. There has been some controversy around those figures, but I want to make it clear that of the productive forest land on Vancouver Island, 91 percent -- indeed, more than 91 percent -- will be contained within this forest land reserve. The Leader of the Third Party shakes his head. I can provide him with those facts. Those are the facts -- that 91 percent of the productive forest land on Vancouver Island will be contained within the forest land reserve. That doesn't mean that each and every acre of land within the forest land reserve is productive forest land. Indeed, about 80 percent of the land within the reserve is productive forest land, again contrary to some numbers being bandied about. I would point out that this is a commercial land reserve that speaks to all the uses of the commercial forest base and provides a measure of security for those who rely upon these forest lands for both commercial forestry and other commercial activities.

Land in the reserve will only be available for urban development if it is removed from the forest land reserve. This way, the legislation in many respects builds upon the agricultural land reserve that we have in this province, which I think people look to to provide them a measure of security over the future of agricultural lands. Now people in the province can look to this reserve to provide the same kind of security over a different component of the land base but one that is equally important -- and that is the forest land base that is available for forestry activity.

The Forest Land Reserve Act establishes an independent Forest Land...

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I can feel the enthusiasm bubbling up from the opposition benches, so I will try to keep my comments brief.

...Commission of at least three members that will be responsible for approving applications for removing private lands from the reserve. The Forest Land Commission will use the same administration and offices as the Agricultural Land Commission, and that will ensure that this commission will not pose a major new administrative burden upon the province or the taxpayers. It will use the same basic infrastructure as the Agricultural Land Commission.

Commissioners will be selected for their expertise in forestry, land use planning and local government issues. The commission must refer all applications for removal of private land from the reserve to local governments. There is a major role to be played here by local governments, which obviously have considerable knowledge and expertise concerning lands within their borders, and considerable expertise in terms of the policy that local communities have with respect to those lands. In making recommendations to the commission, local governments may consider anything they see as relevant to the application for exclusion; however, they must provide the commission with their views and a number of specified urban-growth-related criteria, as set out in the Forest Land Reserve Act.

For exclusion requests dealing with land that is adjacent to urban areas, local governments must consider whether the land is a logical extension of existing urban areas, whether the land can be provided with public services efficiently and cost-effectively, and whether the 

[ Page 12705 ]

land is the most appropriate for accommodating the growth anticipated by the local government in its official community plan or otherwise. They must clearly demonstrate a concern that these lands not be compromised by ill-considered growth but by growth that is necessary to accommodate the legitimate needs of municipalities as communicated by those municipalities and local governments to the commission. For land in areas not adjacent to urban areas, the local government must consider whether the land has rural and recreational characteristics that are of significance to the community, and whether these characteristics are protected by policies of the local government through its official community plan or otherwise.

There's a major role here for local government. It's a major step in recognizing the importance of having a partnership with local government on these important issues. I would point out that in the case of Vancouver Island, the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities is one of the many voices that has been demanding a forest land reserve, and I believe they are ready to take on this partnership and work with the commission in ensuring that the goals of this legislation are met.

Once it has received the local government's recommendations, the commission must balance these recommendations with other considerations, including the suitability of the land for growing and harvesting trees, given its topography, accessibility, soil quality, location and any area of contiguous forest land of which that land is a part. It must also consider the effect of the proposed removal on adjacent forest reserve land and, where the commission considers it advisable, the social and economic impact of the proposed removal.

If an application for removal is approved after that process is completed, there is a provision requiring owners of private managed forest land who remove their land from the reserve to repay a portion of past tax benefits that they received as land owners for having the land designated as managed forest land. I think this requires some explanation. The designation of managed forest land comes about through the voluntary identification of those lands by land owners as being land that they intend to manage on a long-term basis for commercial forestry. In exchange for that long-term commitment, the owners of the land receive considerable tax benefits. It is certainly the view of this government -- and, I think, of many who have looked at this issue -- that if those land owners subsequently abrogate that commitment and decide to convert that land to some other use, rather than to manage that land for long-term commercial forest purposes, then it's only just that the tax benefits that they received in exchange for that commitment be returned, at least in part, to government, given that that commitment is no longer being observed. The legislation reflects this by requiring that a portion of the tax benefit be returned in cases where the commitment that was made by those owners is not carried through, but is reversed by a decision to exclude the land from the forest land reserve.

I should say that the government is not saying in these measures that lands in the forest land reserve must never be removed from the reserve or developed. Rather, we're saying that the process through which those lands are considered for development must weigh the considerable value and benefit of those lands in terms of the value they provide to resource-based communities as forest lands, and that the depletion of those lands should not occur without consultation with communities and without a clear identification that those lands are necessary for urban growth needs or other values. This is a far more deliberate process that will better secure the lands and guard them against depletion for ill-considered urban growth. It will ensure that they are available for future generations who look to those lands for their forestry values.

I think it's been made patently clear to me as minister that people in British Columbia of all points of view are looking for greater security over the forest land base. In this case, the forest land reserve speaks to those concerns. Those concerns have been voiced by very diverse groups: the IWA; the conservation sector that was represented at the CORE table; the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, which I've already mentioned; the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and their reports; and the CORE report itself also signalled the need to move on securing a land base for forestry purposes into the future.

In the case of Crown lands, the Crown lands that are included in the forest land reserve can only be removed through a cabinet order. Members will see that under the act, the commission's advice will be sought as a matter of course prior to cabinet making its decision. This will ensure much greater security over the Crown land component, and that Crown and private lands in the forest land reserve can be looked to with the same measure of security that people look to other components of the land base -- like the agricultural components, through the agricultural land reserve, or like parks, through the Park Act. The same kind of designation and protection is envisaged here to provide the same measure of security.

The need to protect the commercial forest base, including private managed forest lands, has been a recurring theme in this province. It has been raised in any number of public consultation processes in any number of communities. I have been approached on this issue by workers in forest-based communities and by those who are concerned about the future of the environment and the maintenance of a forest land base that should not be sacrificed to ill-considered urban sprawl. I have been approached by municipalities, and as I have already indicated, by a number of the institutions that have looked into this issue. The public processes that have reviewed this issue, like the report of the B.C. Round Table on the Georgia basin initiative, say that the time has come for a forest land reserve in this province to secure the future of our commercial forest base. I believe that the time has come.

It is time for members of this House to demonstrate what many have said but what no one has yet delivered, and that is that we do mean it, members in the opposition, when we say we want to see a secure land base set aside that forest communities and workers can rely upon in the future. We now have the instrument to deliver on that commitment: the Forest Land Reserve Act. It will allow us to provide a measure of security so that companies can make the necessary investments; so that workers can have jobs; so that the forest renewal plan can target its investment strategy; and so that we can move forward with the Forest Practices Code, which guards against the unsustainable use of our forests and ensures that we have a future in which forestry remains very much at the centre of this province's economy, its vision, and the life of its people and communities.

[ Page 12706 ]

For those reasons, I urge all members to put aside partisan considerations and lend their support to this initiative. With that, I move that Bill 56 be read for a second time now.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure this morning to rise and speak on another forestry-related bill. That seems to be the flavour of the week here.

There is no question that forest lands need to be protected. There is no question that those communities, individuals and families depending on forests for their livelihood recognize that the forest land base needs protection. The question we have to ask ourselves is: who does the forest need protection from? Is it from urban sprawl? Is growth in communities the threat to the forest land base in British Columbia? It's not a very large concern, I expect, for most individuals. Most people recognize that urban growth, particularly in the resource communities, is not growing very rapidly. Indeed, resource communities all around this province are struggling to maintain their size and their vigour. Growth in communities like Port McNeill, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and Fort Nelson are not the threat to the forests. I don't believe that the threat that most forest workers are concerned about is the alienation of land by private land owners. The people those communities need protection from are the government. Government represents the greatest threat to the forest land base. So if this bill is brought in to protect people from government, then it will be a worthwhile and useful bill. But let's not fool ourselves. The threat to the working forest is government itself, and alienation of Crown lands and of their resources by government itself is what forest communities and working families dependent on resource industries -- not only forestry, but agriculture, mining and other resource-related industries -- fear most of all.

[10:30]

Although the government of the day is reluctant to be forthright about it, this bill is really trying to reassure those people dependent on forestry and other resource industries that we have given away as much as we, government, intend to give away, and we are promising you, by way of the Forest Land Reserve Act, that we are not going to alienate any more land. In itself, that is untrue. Although I didn't hear the minister -- the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- talk about land claims, the fact is that these lands are subject to aboriginal land claims. Indeed, the government wants to ignore the third dimension. The government wants to say to British Columbians, particularly those on Vancouver Island: "We have found a resolution to this problem. We have taken two dimensions of a three-dimension argument, and we have found a resolution. We've established 23 new parks and set up a forest land base, and that's going to protect the remaining lands." But the government is dishonest, because it doesn't recognize and talk about the effect of a third dimension on these reserve lands or parks. There's nowhere else to get land to resolve land claims; it has to come out of the land base. The government says that it has established park reserves and a working forest land reserve. It's obvious to anyone who considers it that land alienated by way of land claims settlements will have to come out of one or the other of these reserves, or both.

Hon. A. Petter: So what's the point?

J. Weisgerber: It's distressing that the minister still hasn't got the point. It's distressing that they continue to pretend that the other dimension doesn't exist and that the minister stands up in this House for 20 or 25 minutes and doesn't talk about that other dimension. That's the point, Mr. Minister. You ignore the effect and cause people to believe that by simply agreeing to this division between parklands and forest reserve lands, the land use disputes on Vancouver Island are resolved and that the potential for disputes in other parts of the province is somehow dealt with. That's one of the concerns I have with this legislation.

An Hon. Member: That's all you've talked about so far.

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to hope that when I take my place, that member from the Okanagan is going to get up and take his place, as he so rarely does in this House, and let us know where he stands on issues like aboriginal land claims.

Let me be clear. The establishment of a forest reserve is a good thing. I have no argument with the idea of setting aside a working forest for British Columbians. I have some serious concern with the fact that the land claims issue has somehow been taken out of the equation, and I will continue to raise that point.

I'm also concerned about the fact that a number of the owners of small properties have been captured in this legislation. Properties as small as five or six hectares are included in the lands that are brought into the land reserve because they had a tax designation as a managed forest. If the government were going to treat the owners of private land fairly, they would have given them, by way of this legislation, an opportunity at this point to opt out without penalty. I don't think the inclusion of five or six more hectares one way or the other is going to have any significant impact on the forest industry or the communities they are located in and around. It will have a tremendous impact on the owners of those properties. So I believe the first mistake this legislation makes is that it doesn't address a remedy, option or way of setting out at the start for those people to say: "We desire that our properties not be considered as part of the forest reserve and prefer that they be dealt with in another way."

I also disagree with the notion of the formula that would see a large penalty placed on the owners of private property whose land is taken out of the reserve. That speaks to a fundamental question around the ownership of private property and the rights that go with it. Government, I believe, provides a disservice to our economy and our system when it seeks to penalize individuals and take away any opportunity for profit. The minister might know that there are risks involved with the ownership of property. Government doesn't protect private property owners from losses, and in order to compensate for that, they should have an opportunity to make profits when those profits accrue naturally and properly to the property. The minister has laid out a formula which says that we are going to take the fair market value of the land, subtract the forest land value and multiply that by a recapture rate to be designated by regulation of order-in-council. There is no suggestion in the legislation as to what that recapture rate would be. It's listed in the bill as a calculation charge for the recapture of tax benefit, but it provides no time quantum. If the calculation were truly to recapture a tax benefit, it would seem to me that the formula would include at least one more calculation, which would be the number of years that the owner of the property enjoyed that tax benefit.

[ Page 12707 ]

We don't have a formula here that is designed to address a tax benefit or recapture a tax benefit on behalf of government. What it's designed to do is capture any value that the property owner might enjoy through rezoning. If this were the only time that this kind of formula appeared, perhaps I wouldn't be as concerned about it as I am. Recently my colleague from Peace River North had a constituent who bought land from the Crown which was not in the agricultural land reserve but was designated by caveat as agricultural land. When that person went to seek reclassification of the land to rural residential, he and his family were told that they would have to pay the difference between the assessment as rural residential and the assessment as agricultural, and that that would go to the Crown.

I think we see a trend where land taken out of the agricultural land reserve would be penalized to the degree that may well remove any profit from people reclassifying or rezoning their properties. Indeed, do we then take it the next step? With urban lands where someone has a rezoning application from residential to commercial or residential to multifamily, does the Crown tax away all the benefits that might accrue from that? That's the direction, and that's the concern we have with this legislation. We will speak to those concerns, and we will bring amendments to address those.

Again, let me say that I believe that the notion of preserving a resource land base is an appropriate one. I'm not sure why the government chose to designate it as forest lands. When one reads the legislation, it appropriately spells out that there will be many other permitted uses within and on those lands -- mining, agricultural, recreation and the like. So why wouldn't you call it a land reserve or a resource land reserve? Indeed, the decision was made to call it a forest land reserve -- I expect as part of the political drive that sees the government trying to resolve some problems on Vancouver Island, and so the decision....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says it's a provincial forest, but indeed, it is a provincial mining base, I assume.

Hon. A. Petter: It's under the Forest Act.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says it's under the Forests ministry. One wonders whether or not that in itself serves all of the users of the land base, all of the people who would desire to see Crown land preserved as a resource base.

Again, let me say that I believe it is appropriate to protect areas of the province for resource extraction and for our resource economies. I have no argument with the legislation in that respect, but I believe that is always the case. Government in this case goes too far in some areas and allows its ideological drive to get in the way of what could be good legislation.

One of the backbenchers, one of those who only speak from their seat in this House, asked whether or not I would vote for the legislation. Chances are very good that I will support the legislation. But I will do more than those sitting on the back bench of the government do, simply and blindly following the lead of government. As a member of the opposition, I will speak up on the areas in which I believe the legislation is either inadequate or inappropriate. In several areas, I believe it is both.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, this is probably the only chance they'll get, so I'll allow them a couple of moments and then move forward.

The legislation appropriately seeks to protect forest land, mining lands and lands available for agriculture. It fails the test, inasmuch as it deals unfairly with small land holders who have been captured by the legislation. Perhaps indirectly, it does a disservice inasmuch as it seeks to diminish the importance of the resolution of aboriginal land claims in this province and in the areas affected, particularly the lands covered by this legislation.

[10:45]

I will vote in support of the legislation. I will also bring forward some amendments that I hope -- but don't expect -- the government to support.

D. Mitchell: I think Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act, is an extremely important piece of legislation. This bill was introduced in the Legislature little more than a week ago. The minister brought it in on June 23, the morning after the Premier went on provincewide television to make an announcement about the Vancouver Island land use plan revisited.

We don't know what kind of preconsultation took place prior to this bill coming into the House. I would imagine, because of the top-secret, confidential nature of the Premier's televised address, that there wasn't a great deal of preconsultation. The minister certainly hasn't referred to any in his opening comments on second reading. He has referred to a number of processes like CORE and the B.C. Round Table, which the government has now scrapped. He has referred to the fact that the Vancouver Island municipalities have been in favour of this kind of land reserve. Certainly I have no quarrel with that. I myself am a supporter of the establishment of a secure working forest base for our province.

But this piece of legislation itself has not been distributed for more than a week, because it was only introduced in this Legislature a little more than a week ago. This legislation has not had a chance to be scrutinized by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, professional foresters in our province, community groups or others. This legislation, as important as it is, hasn't had a chance to really see the light of day to the extent that it should have.

There has been some qualified support for many initiatives of this government and this particular minister. The Forest Renewal Act, the Forest Practices Code and other major pieces of legislation and initiatives of this government have received some support from the forest sector and from community groups at large. That's because there has been some significant consultation -- both pre- and post-consultation -- before bringing legislation forward for debate in this House.

That's not the case with this bill, and I think that's a mistake. If one thinks back to 20 years ago, when another NDP government brought in legislation establishing the agricultural land reserve in this province, one will recognize that that was a turning point in the history of the first NDP government in British Columbia. That was the point beyond which the government could not recover any shred of popularity in the province, because they rammed through a piece of legislation that was so far-reaching, without any consultation, that there was no going back after that.

[ Page 12708 ]

This government, 20 years later, is bringing in a piece of legislation which -- I think arguably -- is more important than the agricultural land reserve. It has the potential to affect a greater portion of the land base of British Columbia. Yet there has been no consultation before the bill was brought in and certainly very little since. Here we are a week later, and no major industry group, major community group or major group made up of local governments -- like the Union of British Columbia Municipalities -- has had a chance to even scrutinize this bill. Why? Because we're too busy at the same time trying to deal with massive pieces of legislation, like the Forest Practices Code and the forest renewal plan, which the government has brought in.

The truth is that this minister, in the short time that he's been Minister of Forests, has really brought forward a revolution in forestry; but at some point the revolution goes too far. This minister has brought forward more initiatives than several of his predecessors combined -- there's no question. It's a tremendous accomplishment, and I think all members recognize that this minister has been extremely busy and active. But Bill 56 has not received the kind of attention that this minister has made sure previous pieces of legislation have received.

I'll give you an example, hon. Speaker. Late last night we were debating the Forest Practices Code in this House. In fact, it went well beyond late last night; it went into early this morning. I commend the minister for looking so crisp this morning after being here until 4:30 a.m. He's back now and looking crisp, and it's nice of him to give his officials a little time off before we get back at it with the Forest Practices Code. While we were debating the Forest Practices Code in committee stage late last night, the minister referred to -- and we had a good debate about -- resource management zones. These resource management zones are going to be established under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. What is their purpose? Their purpose is to designate a working forest in British Columbia, and the minister described that.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: Subzones.

D. Mitchell: Subzones. Nevertheless, the minister indicated that most of the working forest of British Columbia could ultimately be designated as resource management zones. There's got to be a point where we get pieces of a puzzle that fit together as part of a coherent vision, or alternatively -- and I fear that we're heading toward this alternative -- we head toward administrative chaos and bureaucratic gridlock. There's confusion as to what constitutes a forest land reserve as opposed to resource management zones, the protected areas strategy, the CORE process or spotted owl conservation areas in the constituency that I represent.

All these concepts seem to be overlapping and intermingling, and it's causing great confusion in the community of British Columbia. Where does the forest land reserve begin and where do resource management zones end? How does all this fit together as part of the so-called coherent vision the minister has tried to describe? Are these pieces in a puzzle or part of a confused vision? Is it going to make sense? There are so many concepts dealing with resource management and land use being discussed in the community at large right now. There's an attempt to produce a coherent vision, but my fear is that we're heading in the opposite direction. Bureaucratic gridlock and administrative chaos could be the alternative.

There has to be concern about that. I will ask one question. The minister says that the establishment of a secure forest land base is the objective of Bill 56. Certainly I believe that we need to establish a working forest in British Columbia where there's some security and certainty that the forest land base is going to be there for harvesting and for forest-based activities not only for this generation but for future generations on a sustainable basis. But what happens, as the House Leader for the third party indicated, when that forest land base is affected by a native land claim, for instance? What happens when a spotted owl flies over the forest land reserve? I'd like to know, and my constituents would certainly like to know. Is it no longer secure? Is the forest land reserve no longer available as part of the working forest because these other elements that are taking place in our province are unresolved? The minister worries that he might get hit by a spotted owl, and I wouldn't wish that on him. Before we can offer any kind of qualified support for this bill, the minister is going to have to answer these kinds of questions. I hope he will try to address some of them when he closes debate on second reading. Certainly when we get into committee stage, we will have a chance to ask some of these questions.

Part of the problem is that this minister has become a victim of the legislative blitzkrieg that his government has brought forward in yet another session. Here we are entering into the long days of summer. This minister himself was on his feet in this chamber until 4:30 this morning; we're back here a few hours later on another piece of controversial legislation.

If we had a fixed calendar, the people's business could be done intelligently and rationally within a prescribed time limit. If the government were disciplined enough to bring major legislation in early enough in the session, we could deal with it intelligently, rather than bringing it forward in the dying days of the session and trying to ram it through during all-night sittings. This government criticized previous administrations for all-night sittings, because they said they were undemocratic and unethical. They called it shameful. Now they bring it forward and perfect the technique. Last week we sat until midnight every night, and this week we're sitting around the clock.

I don't think any members of this House have any reluctance to debate important matters that are brought forward by this government and provide full scrutiny. I don't want to be too hard on him, because I think he has tried to do a good job, but this minister has become a victim of this government's inept legislative program. Once again, here we are trying to deal with the Forest Land Reserve Act, a bill introduced only a week ago in this House -- a major piece of legislation -- but the community at large hasn't had a chance to really take a look at this yet. I've been in touch with many industry, community and municipal groups, and they haven't had a chance to scrutinize this legislation.

We may be in support of the principle of establishing a forest land reserve and defining what the working forest of British Columbia is. I agree with the House Leader of the third party on that. The member for Peace River South has identified the aims of most members of this assembly well. We identify with that principle; we want to see it established. But is this the way to go?

[ Page 12709 ]

In his comments on second reading, the minister himself said that there is an important role for local governments to play in the administration of the Forest Land Reserve Act. I'm confused by that, because when I look at the explanatory notes for the bill -- section 20 in particular -- it says that the authority of local governments in relation to land within the forest land reserve is reduced. We already know that local governments have a fairly small role to play in administering the working forest. According to its own explanatory notes, this bill says that that role is going to be diminished further, yet in his comments the minister says that they have an important role to play. Who can we trust? Is the minister correct, or are the explanatory notes for the bill he's sponsoring correct? These are the kinds of questions that are going to have to be answered.

The reason this bill should not be brought forward at this time, in my opinion, is that it's moving too quickly. While we applaud the minister for moving quickly in some areas, in other areas I think he is ill-advised to be proceeding. Perhaps the Government House Leader is pushing him and telling him that he cannot afford to sleep this week; he's got to get this legislation through. If the minister is doing this on his own initiative, then one wonders why he is trying to push such major pieces of legislation through this House when British Columbians at large haven't had a chance to really analyze the details of these concepts.

We support it in principle. I would like to offer my support for the concept that underlies the Forest Land Reserve Act, but I don't support the government's approach to dealing with this Legislature: government by blitzkrieg; an ill-managed legislative program that forces us to deal with this legislation on an around-the-clock basis. British Columbians who are concerned and who are affected by definitions of working forests haven't had a chance to comment on this legislation yet. There hasn't been sufficient consultation. There was no preconsultation and certainly no post-consultation before the government dealt with this legislation.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

There are major concerns with this bill, including how private lands are going to be incorporated or excluded from the reserve, the taxing authorities of local government and how they're impacted by decisions to take land out of the reserve, and the establishment of a commission and its operation. All of these details provide cause for concern that the minister is not allowing the proper amount of light to shine on this kind of legislation before passing it into law.

So, hon. Speaker, you can see that I personally approve of the principle of establishing a working forest. The idea of a forest land reserve is something that can and should be supported, but this legislation needs more time, lest this government make the same mistake that it made when a previous NDP government brought forward the agricultural land reserve 20 years ago -- a concept that was probably broadly supported but which was a major mistake. I know members opposite will recognize that that's why it took them 20 years to get back into office. This may be an example of why it's going to be at least another 20 years before the people of British Columbia will ever consider electing a socialist government that believes in legislation by blitzkrieg.

[11:00]

With those comments, I am going to take my seat. I will leave it up to you, hon. Speaker, to decide how I am going to vote on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: I am not sure the Chair can handle the challenge.

F. Garden: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise this morning to support this bill proceeding through the House. It has been suggested by the previous speaker that this is something that we are rushing through in the late hours of a session. I can assure you that the forest workers and the people I have been involved with in the forest industry for the last 30-odd years have been arguing strongly for this kind of legislation. This legislation shows the vision that this government has for a sustainable future and sustainable jobs not only for the people who work in the forest industry, but for all the people in British Columbia. This is far-reaching legislation which will have a major impact on how our forests are managed in the future. It will give the people who work in the woods the knowledge and the feeling that this government is committed to making sure that their future will be sustainable and that they can look forward to a future of working in our forests.

Some of my colleagues have already stated this, but it bears repeating. This vision for the future this government is putting before the people in just the few short months that we have been in office.... When you think of it, we have only been here two and a half years, and in the last little while we have brought in legislation that is historic in proportion, compared to how the forests have been managed in the past in this province. It started with CORE, and there has been much criticism of that process.

It doesn't matter how you look at it, it was a first in B.C. People in regions were brought together and asked what their opinions were of how the forests and the land should be used in this province. Maybe we didn't get the kind of agreement and consensus that we wanted, but it was a process where ordinary people who work in the woods and in the regions were able to sit down and put their ideas forward to the government on what they thought was the best plan for their areas and their stability. The government has listened to that, and we have proceeded with the legislation in that manner. As you recall, at the same time as the CORE process was started, some other historic things were done. There were laws around set-aside so that these places would not be decimated by forestry before the decisions were made to deal with these areas.

I am proud to be part of a government that introduced that process and was able to be a part of it in my region. It was followed by the forest renewal plan. For the first time, we will see some of the wealth and profits that are made in the forest industry returned to the regions where they are actually produced. Before that, the revenues used to funnel into the black hole of general revenues in this government and disappear -- in many cases to the lower mainland, to the detriment of the rural communities, one of which I represent. So again, this is historic stuff. That money will go back into the regions, and it will be used for silviculture, roadbuilding and, yes, for retraining of those workers that might be displaced by some of the things we've had to bring forward to preserve the forest for the future.

Then after that, came the Forest Practices Code, the first of its kind in this province. We debated it late into the 

[ Page 12710 ]

night last night. Again, it's a long process, but it's also historic. I'm sure each MLA here should be proud that they are in a Legislature where this kind of far-seeing legislation is being introduced. For over 50 years, because of previous governments, the forests were mismanaged and brought to the point where people in the world who are our customers were starting to worry about our capability for managing the precious asset that we had. The Forest Practices Code will show them and the people that work in the woods that we're serious about sustaining this valuable asset and at the same time sustaining the environment.

Then we come to the forest reserve legislation, the Forest Land Reserve Act. There's nothing worse than being a worker in an industry and seeing your job starting to disappear, regardless of how it disappears. Over the past 15 years, many jobs have disappeared because mechanization took over, technological change came in, and new machines were brought into the pulp and paper mills, the sawmills and the woods. It's a bit disconcerting to be a worker in these industries and see that happen. But you can't stop progress. It's been said that if you don't mechanize or take part in technological change, your industry will die. I think most forest workers could accept that, because it did stabilize many of the jobs, although many were lost. But while you're sitting there going through that process, you see the very thing that you depend on, the woods of this province, starting to disappear in uncontrolled development, especially on Vancouver Island, and you start to get a little nervous.

My hat is off to my colleagues from Vancouver Island who pursued this particular legislation so vigorously. They deserve a great deal of credit. These workers can now see that this government is not only determined to look after the environmental part of our province -- the parks, streams and watersheds -- but is also prepared to say to the forest workers: "We will look after the province in such a way that we will set aside lands dedicated to producing trees as well as to producing jobs and sustaining the job you're in."

I heard it said by one of the previous speakers from the opposition this morning that we're intruding on what he considers private property rights. But we've been very specific in this bill that we're talking about privately managed forest lands. These are lands about which the companies themselves have said: "Look, if you give us a tax break, we'll dedicate this land to forest land. We'll look after it, but give us a tax break." And we did that. But more and more we started to see that being eroded as the developers came along and talked these companies into developing some of the land that they'd been getting the tax break on, in a spectacular way in some areas of Vancouver Island.

So it's with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I stand up and see this as just another piece in the plan and vision of this government for a sustainable future for the workers in British Columbia and the people of British Columbia in general.

L. Krog: I suspect that many in this chamber, and indeed many in the province, do not begin to appreciate the significance of this particular piece of legislation, but there are many who very well understand the problem that it addresses. There are roughly 915,000 hectares of managed forest land throughout the province of British Columbia, and roughly two-thirds of that -- more, actually -- are on Vancouver Island alone, representing the old E&N Railway grant lands. The same applies to the area that my friend the member for Nelson-Creston represents. It's the old Crowsnest Railway land grant. Over time, these lands have largely been alienated to large forest companies, along with Shell Canada. Indeed, when the minister addressed the assembly earlier this morning, he spoke about the four major companies that own some three-quarters of this land. They comprise major forest companies and Shell Canada.

On Vancouver Island, much of that land is highly productive forest land, but it's also located right next to what are probably the fastest-growing municipalities in the province, perhaps with the exception of Kelowna. Representing Island constituencies, I and my friends the members for Comox Valley, Cowichan-Ladysmith, Nanaimo, Alberni and North Island understand what the problem is. These lands were very quickly becoming highly desirable for municipal expansion. They were highly prized by developers, who saw enormous returns in profit.

The taxpayers of this province have for a number of years accepted far less revenue from these managed forest lands than would have been appropriate. That was done on an understanding that the forest companies who in large measure are the owners of these lands would maintain them for the production of timber and the employment of British Columbians -- in particular, people on Vancouver Island, my concern. That's a bit of a deal. But what was happening was that proposals were being made to take those lands out of the managed forest land category, as set up through B.C. Assessment, and turn them over to urban development.

In particular, in Parksville, a proposal involving 500 hectares immediately adjacent to the city of Parksville was put before the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's interesting that some time after that proposal was made, the city of Parksville passed a resolution supporting the concept of a forest land reserve. Likewise the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. And it has been supported, as the minister mentioned, by numerous organizations, including the IWA and several environmental groups. What was going to happen was that 500 hectares of forest land would come out of the forest base. The potential for jobs there would be lost, and we would add to the urban sprawl that already has become the most noticeable problem on Vancouver Island.

A hundred years from now, if Vancouver Island is still a livable place -- a place where people can still work in the forest industry; a place where communities have defined limits with some green space in between -- it will be because of this forward-thinking government that brought in this bill. Thirty or forty years from now, the most right-wing, reactionary, conservative government would have been forced to do the same thing. But by that time, much of the beauty, value and need for a forest base would have disappeared on Vancouver Island. It would be gone. It would be addressing the problem, as the old saying goes, by closing the barn door after the horse is out. This government has shown real courage and foresight in tackling this issue head-on. This will forever preserve areas of Vancouver Island that would have disappeared due to development.

I think some numbers are appropriate, if the members will reflect on them. In the Cowichan Valley Regional District alone, there are 261,000 hectares of managed forest land; in the Regional District of Nanaimo, which is largely my riding, 40,870 hectares; in Comox-Strathcona, 163,895 

[ Page 12711 ]

hectares. It was clear that the pressure on forest companies to return profits to their shareholders would force them, frankly, even if it wasn't their wish, to develop managed forest land into residential housing, commercial land or whatever over time, and that pressure would only continue to grow with increasing population.

The Regional District of Nanaimo is an example. If growth continued at a conservative rate, which hasn't been the experience in the last five years, the population would go from a little over 100,000 people to about 440,000 people by the year 2051. In fact, based on growth figures averaged over the last five years, that figure would be roughly 880,000 people.

The pressure to develop those managed forest lands on Vancouver Island that are within the regional districts and adjacent to urban areas and municipalities would have been horrendous. Once that forest base is gone.... It was as stupid as the argument that the previous government used to make that once you've made it into a golf course, somehow you can turn it back into agricultural use. We wouldn't have been tearing down the houses that were put on that forest land to turn it back to a forest base when we needed the trees for our forest industry. The fact is that our forest base on the east coast of Vancouver Island -- roughly 20 percent of the total land area of Vancouver Island -- would have disappeared forever. This has guaranteed jobs in the forest industry, green space, the distinct nature of communities on Vancouver Island and a future for the livability of Vancouver Island.

As I said at the start, I think this is an extremely important move by government. Many people do not begin to appreciate how important it is, but I think that when you see the list of groups that was enumerated this morning and hear the names of the groups that have supported this and called for this concept to be imposed....

Interjections.

L. Krog: They have indicated their support over and over again in public and in private.

D. Mitchell: Have they seen the bill, though?

L. Krog: My friend the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi keeps asking if they've seen the bill. Knowing that the member is a great historian of the previous Social Credit government, I suspect he's been spoiled by the amount of consultation that this government has undertaken on all of its legislation. He well understands that many of the former members of the Social Credit caucus never saw the bills themselves until they were dropped in the Legislature. So to stand here today and criticize this government for taking a necessary approach to this problem is, I think, not based on history. I suspect that if hon. members in the opposition go around and talk to people who are impacted by this legislation, they'll find that everyone -- perhaps with the exception of some forest companies -- will support this concept. Indeed, the president of MacMillan Bloedel himself, in talking about the Vancouver Island land use plan, supported it. The fact is that this forest land reserve is an integral part of that plan.

[11:15]

This bill deserves the support of every thinking member of the Legislature. It preserves the resource base not only in terms of forest use but also for mining. It preserves it for those wealth-creating industries that the opposition is always talking about. If they oppose this bill, they are suggesting that the forest base and other land bases should disappear into urban development instead of being retained to create long-term employment in perpetuity on Vancouver Island. Quite frankly, from the perspective of my constituents, this bill will probably be the most important act ever passed by this Legislature in terms of the future of Vancouver Island.

Hon. Speaker, I am going to defer to some other members who are obviously anxious to speak on this legislation, as I hear from their catcalls. I sincerely hope that in time they'll begin to appreciate the importance of this legislation and its value, particularly to my constituency of Parksville-Qualicum.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act. But as the House Leader of the Reform Party said when he spoke on who has been the biggest threat to the forest industry, it's quite clear who has been the biggest threat. There is no question about that. This government has consistently answered to those who want to preserve. But they did not want to preserve the forests or the forest industry.

Interjection.

H. De Jong: Yes, they called for preservation -- for some other reason or another.

There's an interesting situation right now. Yesterday or the day before, a news release was issued by the Minister of Forests about closing a logging road into the Pinecone area. They had a special term for closing that: the deactivation of a logging road. It is supposedly a threat to Boise Creek. That is the only access into that area for logging purposes. The minister should know full well -- and I'm sure he does -- that there have been many suggestions that that area be preserved, for whatever. Because the treetops are already dead, it's high time the area is logged and the forest is renewed so that it will provide jobs 50, 60 or 70 years down the road. I'm not sure what this is going to do to the area being logged and to the company logging it. But if this main access is taken away, I can only suggest that that is another area where this government is not adhering to maintaining a forest base for British Columbia.

This morning the minister talked quite highly about the renewal of our forests and about the preservation of the forestry base. This morning a question was asked about who was being the biggest threat. I would like to put it in different words. I think that the government, the Ministry of Forests itself, has been not only the biggest threat to the forest industry but also the biggest abuser of that industry. If that wasn't so, then I think the process would have been started differently. I'm not against preserving the forestry base; I'm all in favour of that. But surely if the government were really sincere about preserving the forestry base for a viable forest industry, then they wouldn't take out 23 parks prior to preserving it.

The minister made reference to the agricultural land reserve and the process that occurred at that time. Well, that process was quite different from what is being done today. Yes, it was somewhat unacceptable when the overall reserve was first established. But there was consultation with the local communities, municipalities and regional districts after that was done. Then the lines were drawn as to what would actually be reserved and 

[ Page 12712 ]

what would be allowed for community expansion and other things that were important to the local communities. There was a reasonable process after the initial statement by government that there was to be an agricultural land reserve. It included all the lands, and then the others were separated out of that.

This government is doing it in exactly the opposite way. First they steal as much of the forest as they can because of pressures put on by various groups to preserve the forest itself, not the land. And that is wrong. If this process is going to work, then surely the government must take a step backward and say they will abandon the CORE process and now deal with the individual communities, not high-handedly tell various communities throughout the province how much is being taken away prior to this preservation.

I'm sure the minister will recall that the biggest demonstration that ever happened on the Legislature grounds was exactly because of the CORE process. They were only from Vancouver Island; people from the rest of the province haven't shown up yet. If they all did, they wouldn't even fit on the Legislature grounds.

Yes, I believe very strongly in a good forest land base being preserved for the industry of British Columbia and for good economic activity for the province, but not in the way this government is doing it. They have taken the wrong approach up to now, and I believe that if the government wants to pursue this to its final analysis, they will be sorry for having made the exclusions prior to setting the base.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. I recognize the member for Chilliwack on second reading. [Applause.]

R. Chisholm: I hope they are still slapping their desks and clapping after this speech.

In principle, I like the idea of an FLR. I do have a few problems with the bill, but the FLR in principle has some merit. The ALR, in its time, had merit too. The problem is whether or not the government of the day has the competence to implement it. We take a look at the ALR and see substantial problems with it and how it was implemented. I'm afraid that the same transition might happen with an FLR.

We agree that we need a working forest. We need to designate what will be a working forest area. But I have to ask one question of all the government members. I haven't yet heard an answer about who was consulted. Was the Council of Forest Industries consulted? Were the loggers consulted? Were the aboriginals consulted? We keep hearing about land claims. It's a very important issue. Was the UBCM consulted? This bill was tabled just a week ago. We are debating it in second reading today, at the same time that we are trying to pressure other bills through. I have to compare it to, let's say, Bill 40, which we debated yesterday and today. It started very early in the afternoon and it went until 4:45 a.m. today. Is this the way to do business? Is this the way the government should approach this bill? I have to ask the question: was the bill adequate for what they are trying to accomplish, considering there were 80 amendments? Was the bill well-written? All of these questions beg to be asked.

Now we look at Bill 56, and we find out that nobody was consulted. This government, if I recall back.... Certain speakers have talked about being here for two and half years. I remember a certain document that came out that was called "A Better Way" and this government professed: "Mike Harcourt and the New Democrats are committed to open and balanced government that deals fairly with ordinary men and women instead of playing favourites with political friends and insiders." [Applause.]

I'll be clapping too when I hear a member from the government side stand up and say that these people were consulted. If they can't, there is another one of their promises gone by the wayside. Mind you, they have broken that promise before. I have to quote another one. This is No. 21 of their 48 promises: "It's time to get down to business and negotiate a fair settlement of the Indian land question. A New Democratic government will." I have already stated that the aboriginal parties have not been consulted on this bill. They have not seen it.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: If it is baloney, hon. member, maybe you had best stand up in the House and state categorically that they have been negotiated with; that they have seen the bill and they do know what is happening to the land base of this province. If you can't, then I would advise you to retract the statement. People are reading Hansard and people are listening, and when they do speak to this bill, you're going to hear them say that they were not consulted. Like I said, my problem with this bill is whether this government has the competence to implement it, and I don't believe they have.

There was a meeting in Kelowna, and the Kelowna Daily Courier reported what happened at the meeting. They were talking about the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, and I'll quote what it stated there: "Get rid of the agricultural land freeze and get government out of our lives. This was the message delivered to provincial Liberals Thursday evening by nearly 100 people, most of them farmers, at a special forum on the agricultural land reserve."

The problem is that they had good idea, but they didn't know how to put it into place. Nobody is arguing with their vision; the vision is a good one. But do they have the competence to put it into place?

I'll go on with the quote:

"Keynote speakers included Hardwick, Kelowna orchardist; David Hobson, president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association; and Winfield grower Penny Gambell, a B.C. Agricultural Land Commission member. After the meeting broke up into smaller groups to discuss the topic, a straw vote was held to tell the Liberals what the party should do if it forms the next provincial government. Options were to keep the land freeze, but return lost safety net programs, or to remove the ALR and let the farmers be subject to world price and market forces. Except for two people, all voted to dump the reserve, giving land control back to the farmers."

That's because this government and past governments have abused the farmers. When a whole industry states that they want out of the reserve because of the incompetence of this government to implement it, the government should stand up and listen.

[11:30]

Interjections.

R. Chisholm: Hon. members, if you want to sit there and harass, you'd better talk to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. At their last annual general meeting, for the first time in its 20-year history, the ALR was voted against. This is deplorable, because the idea is a good one. It's 

[ Page 12713 ]

deplorable that it was voted against, but it was because of the lack of support and the lack of implementation by this government. It's time that the government realizes that when they come up with a bill and people aren't consulted, all of a sudden they have resistance. Nobody was consulted here again, and all we're going to have is more resistance.

Like I said, I like the idea of an FLR. But will this government implement it properly? Will this government listen to amendments that would assist the bill to become law?

There are certain questions you have to ask. When we look at an ALR, we see a bureaucracy that comes with it; we see the cost and size of bureaucracy. What are the answers to these questions? What size of bureaucracy will we see with this particular bill? What is the cost of it going to be?

We have to start debating private property rights, because it is a big issue. If there is no threat to private property, it will come out in third reading, and that's great. But if there is, will the government accept amendments?

What about retroactive taxation? What are the legalities of that, when you take the land out and have retroactive taxation? That's exactly what is in this bill. Is this fair or not? These have to be debated.

We look at the CORE principle. It has failed. This government has got to be a bit more open. They have to consult a bit more with the people of this province, which they have not done, as we have proven over and over again. Then they wonder why they're in such rough shape. Well, if they would stop trying to do things through the back door and behind people's backs, maybe they would have some cooperation. But at this point in time nobody has seen the bill.

I have to say to the hon. minister.... And he's talking about the numbers. Well, bring the numbers into the House, table them and send them out to the industry, the loggers and the people who this bill affects. Let's see what they come back with. Hon. minister, your numbers do not correspond with the Premier's. It's about time somebody in this House realized that if you say one, the Premier better be saying one. If he's saying three and you're saying one, somebody is going to ask a question -- especially on the opposition side.

Again, we have to talk about overcontrol and overregulation. When is this bill and this idea a good idea, and when does it become a bad idea? That is the same question that had to be asked about the ALR. When did the good vision stop and the bad product begin? This is what we have to debate in here. This is what the people of the province should have a right to see and to debate, before we debate it in this House.

Nobody is against the FLR, management of the resource base or sustainable forests. Of course we're all for that. But I go back to the question I've asked about two or three times: is this government capable of implementing it? That's my question.

We're going to have amendments, and I hope the minister will debate them. I hope he is open-minded and receptive enough to discuss the problems. Maybe this could become a good bill. But if he doesn't....

I'll quote again about the ALR from the Kelowna Daily Courier -- and we're going to have similar problems. It says:

"The reserve was based on sound principles when it was introduced in 1973, but it has become more and more unfair to farmers, says Kelowna councillor Henry Markgraf. 'When the provincial government put the ALR in place, it was with the understanding the government would help out, but there has been less and less help coming,' said Markgraf, who has farmed 20 acres in east Kelowna for the past 27 years. The whole concept of the ALR is unfair because society and the government want to preserve land for future needs, but only a small group was asked to do something about it, said Markgraf, who served as a top bureaucrat at city hall for many years."

The process of creating the ALR was flawed because marginal farmland, such as certain valleys, were not taken into account. This is flawed too, unless the government is willing to debate it clause by clause and is willing to make some changes.

What happens when they reclassify or rezone property? What happens to the individual in this FLR? These are questions that need to be answered by this minister. Instead of just grandstanding with a whole bunch of political posturing, let's talk about the numbers. Let's talk about reclassification and what it does to people. When we get the answers to that, maybe we can accept this bill. Or, if the minister is willing to accept some constructive amendments, maybe the bill will become something worthy of our support. Then I will gladly support it in final reading. At this point in time, I support it in principle. But until the minister answers an awful lot of questions, and until he's willing to change some of the parts of this bill to make it fair to the individual, I have to reserve and withhold full support.

I'll take my seat without any more comments. I beg the minister to keep an open mind, because the principle and the vision are good. Let's not blow it again, like you did back in '73. Let us put something in that will last for 20 years without having organizations coming down and trying to get it cancelled due to poor management of the process.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize now the member for Surrey-White Rock. [Applause.]

W. Hurd: Thank you. I don't know whether that applause is a testament to the survival instincts of those who debated the Forest Practices Code in the assembly last night or not, hon. Speaker. It's not often that the other side of House responds when I rise to speak on a forestry bill.

With respect to this particular bill, I think it's important to reflect on the philosophy that the minister offered when he rose to address the bill in second reading. He suggested to the House that this bill would have the effect of protecting forest land in the province by giving it a designation. That was the rationale for the introduction of this bill. Well, after the debate we had in this assembly last night on the Forest Practices Code and on the ability of officials to designate interpretative forests and sensitive areas and to make across-the-board designations with respect to the entire forest land base -- and not just Crown land but also private land -- to suggest, as the minister has done, that this bill will secure a forest land base in British Columbia is an utter sham, a fraud and a joke to the people who live in forest-dependent communities.

In the course of this debate, this minister stood and suggested that the most critical factor in the alienation of the forest land base is urban growth. That's this minister's assessment of the greatest threat to the working forests in the province. Speaker after speaker during the course of not only debate on this bill but also the Forest Practices 

[ Page 12714 ]

Code has talked about the overlapping initiatives of this government on the land base, which continue and will continue regardless of the passage of this bill.

We can designate a working forest zone or a forest land reserve all we want to, and the ministry can still move in and declare areas off-limits to harvesting. They can still subject it to the CORE process. They have 23 parks on Vancouver Island that they haven't even designated boundaries to yet, and this minister has the gall to stand late in this legislative session, propose a bill like this, suggest that it applies to 20 or so individual land owners in the province and foist it off as sound public policy. It's a sham; that's really what it is.

Let's talk about the specific aspects of the bill, which the minister has suggested have received widespread consultation. Whether the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities realizes it or not, this bill encumbers them with taking certain steps in the event that an application goes to the commission to deal with a forest land reserve withdrawal. Clearly they have an important and considerable role to play, which I'm not convinced the Union of B.C. Municipalities is even aware of. I'm not convinced that anybody affected by this bill is aware of what it envisages.

For the minister to suggest that by simply putting it into a working forest zone, setting up a commission and requiring a number of onerous withdrawal provisions, the working forest is going to be somehow protected -- when it can be attacked by the Crown, and has been at every opportunity -- is a shocking indictment of how far this government is prepared to go to bait and switch B.C.'s unfortunate resource workers, who will not be afforded any additional protection for the working forest in this province.

This bill is aimed at the 20 or so land owners on Vancouver Island; the minister has acknowledged that in his opening remarks. It's aimed at the major licensees, who, the minister is convinced, are just waiting for the opportunity to take their land out and turn it into shopping centres and urban developments. In his remarks, he has assessed that that represents the most significant threat to the working forests in the province.

Hon. Speaker, what has the debate been about for the last two years in the province? Has it been about shopping centres around urban centres on Vancouver Island? That's the last of the list of concerns for people who live in forest-dependent communities. If this government were serious about a working forest zone, they'd make it off-limits to far more than private land withdrawals. They'd put in place some process before a regional forest manager can move in under provisions of the Forest Practices Code and simply declare an area an interpretative site or designate it a sensitive area, apparently without appeal or compensation provisions or anything else. If you were to ask forest managers in British Columbia what they fear most in this province, it's not the possibilities of private land withdrawals; it's the fact that this government is moving to allow the Crown to simply designate land and move in to arbitrarily reduce the amount of the working forest. They've done that across the board in just about every act that we've dealt with in the current session, in the Forest Practices Code and in the Commission on Resources and Environment. There were 20,000 forestry workers on the lawns of the B.C. Legislature, and I didn't talk to one who was concerned about a shopping centre alienating the working forest of the province. They weren't here to talk about that. They weren't suggesting that the alienation of private forest land is the single biggest issue facing the working forest in British Columbia. They were concerned about what the Crown -- this government -- is doing to their jobs and their livelihoods.

As I look through this bill.... I talked earlier about the encumbrances that will now be placed on local governments. We're dealing with a section in here that obviously sets up a commission to parallel the agricultural land reserve. As the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi quite rightly pointed out, this is an even more significant development, with more ramifications for the province than the agricultural land reserve, because it has the potential to apply to a far greater area of land in British Columbia. For that reason alone, the notion of widespread consultation and involvement by all parties in the province should be paramount before this particular legislation is adopted.

[11:45]

The minister suggested that in the event an application goes forward to withdraw private land from a reserve, there's going to be a clawback of taxation because the private land holder has supposedly enjoyed a benefit at the expense of the Crown. That is such patent nonsense when you look at the overall effect of establishing a private land working forest in British Columbia. The orderly harvest of logs from that working forest, the options to replant and the opportunities for an enhanced silviculture regime on that land require investments of capital, real dollars, on private land. There's no offset for stumpage for those investments. To suggest that the government is now going to claw back 15 or 20 years of retrogressive taxation or whatever....

An Hon. Member: Six years.

W. Hurd: Well, he says six years, but we've seen the approach the government takes to taxation issues. This is the government that wanted to put a surtax on expensive homes in the province of British Columbia. I can see the Minister of Municipal Affairs looking the other way, as well she might. It was a huge issue in her riding. It's the same kind of approach from this government -- an attack on private property rights in British Columbia.

If this government wants an election issue, I invite them to fight an election on the issue of private property rights in the province. I tell you, hon. Speaker, it's a battle they won't win.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm being heckled by the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who I'm sure has received numerous submissions on the notion of the agricultural land reserve in his riding.

J. Beattie: All supportive.

W. Hurd: He says they're all supportive. I'm certain that he will be confident in going to the polls in his own riding with further land encumbered, further land set aside and more limitations to private property rights in the Okanagan. I invite him to fight an election on that issue, because he won't last long with that kind of approach.

This bill does not afford one shred of additional protection to the working forest in the province of British Columbia. When the minister alludes to support from the 

[ Page 12715 ]

IWA and the forest product companies, he knows full well that they are talking about a working forest with an entirely different definition than that which is called for in this act. They are calling for a working forest that is protected from all manner of withdrawals, not the withdrawal of private land. This is a selective approach, which the government has attempted to disguise as a means of protecting the working forest in British Columbia.

I think it is important for us to read into the record the kind of onerous additional burden that this bill will present to the people of the province of British Columbia, to local governments and to private land holders. I don't think the bill has received adequate review. It simply hasn't received the proper scrutiny and review that it deserves. This is a bill that the government should have taken the same approach on that it took with the Forest Practices Code. A mention has been made during the course of this debate that a discussion paper was introduced. Submissions were invited on that discussion paper. Then the discussion paper went into the formulation of a Forest Practices Code, which was circulated for discussion.

We've seen this bill introduced late in the session. It was introduced to coincide with the government's slick, taxpayer-funded ad campaign on Vancouver Island. Clearly there was a connection between this bill and that. I don't believe for a minute that those people and communities to be affected by this legislation have had the opportunity to scrutinize its import and intent -- the criteria for removal, the fact that local governments now have a huge additional burden to consider when they deal with forest land applications or withdrawal, the implications for clawing back of tax benefits and the determination of land values for the purposes of recapturing the taxation. One assumes that the government will now set up a parallel assessment authority in order to come to some sort of valuation for the purposes of clawing back taxation. We go through the list. They've taken an issue everybody feels concerned about, which is protection of a working forest in British Columbia, and have brought in a sledgehammer with this legislation.

Because this bill is so important, and because I do not believe for a minute that it's received the scrutiny and consultation it deserves, I now move an amendment to the bill in second reading, that the motion for second reading of Bill 56 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting the words "six months hence" -- a six-month hoist motion, which I think will allow for the kind of consultation that this government seems intent on avoiding with respect to this bill. It's a reasoned amendment in second reading. It's an amendment which I just know the members opposite will welcome the opportunity to support, because it will invite the kind of solicitations, opinions and concerns about this bill which are not part of the debate and which have been only mentioned obliquely by various members opposite -- when they talk about the response of the IWA towards a working forest, for example. The minister well knows it's not the type of definition they had in mind. At this late date in the session, with the government obviously intent to ram this legislation through with exhausting late-night sittings, as they are prepared to do with every other bill, I think it's a reasoned amendment that deserves the support of the House at this time.

On the amendment.

T. Perry: I'm rising in opposition to the amendment. I listened to the previous speaker but one....

An Hon. Member: Here's a guy who's going down.

T. Perry: I hear members opposite saying: "Here's a guy who's going down." I actually just got up from my seat. If they're referring to the persistent rumours that the present member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove wishes to contest the next election in Vancouver-Little Mountain, I say more power to him. Welcome, and just try to run on your record in Vancouver-Little Mountain. Just try to run on a staunchly anti-environmentalist record, a record against spending on education and post-secondary education, a record against the agricultural land reserve, a record against the forest land reserve now, a record against the forest renewal plan. I will take you on any time; I welcome the competition. I would love to stand on the government's record.

The previous speaker but one spoke about growing resistance to the bill we're debating today, the Forest Land Reserve Act for British Columbia. I think back to the definition of resistance as an electrical concept. I think it's called Ohm's Law, which is that V = IR and R = V/I. If you've forgotten that, resistance equals voltage divided by current. In other words, if you're going to have a lot of resistance, as the member for Chilliwack suggested, you've got to have a really high voltage and not very much current -- or not too much juice, in other words. I think that's exactly what we saw: not very much power, but plenty of voltage and no current. The neurons were not firing; the brain cells were not in gear. They're not even thinking.

That member for Chilliwack came out effectively against the agricultural land reserve, which is one of the single most popular, far-reaching pieces of legislation in the history of British Columbia. It is one of the reasons people remember back to the days of Dave Barrett and think: perhaps he made a few mistakes, but he left British Columbia one wonderful legacy -- the ability to produce food and feed ourselves into the future, of which we would otherwise have been stripped.

That's what we're talking about in this bill. We have a sensible, proud initiative by a government which is looking to the long-term future, a government which has produced a forest renewal plan that measures the future of the forests in hundreds of years, not in 30- or 40- or 60-year rotations. We had two backbenchers from Vancouver Island in particular, the members for Parksville-Qualicum and Comox Valley, who worked very hard to bring this initiative forward because of its particular import in their ridings. Other Vancouver Island MLAs knew that it was important both to the long-term environmental status of Vancouver Island and to the forest industry on Vancouver Island, and will ensure that the resource is protected.

I heard members opposite suggesting that we delay this bill because it is retroactive taxation. How absolutely absurd! Do they think somebody ought to be able to benefit from the Assessment Act and enjoy low taxes and then be able to flip their property into real estate without ever having to pay their social obligations like all the rest of us? Do they think there are some taxpayers who are specially privileged, who shouldn't have to carry their full weight? Or do they think that instead of the provisions under section 21 of the bill, perhaps those people who hold private forest lands that were given to them as part 

[ Page 12716 ]

of the railway grants in order to ensure the perpetuation of a forest industry in B.C. ought to have been paying higher taxes all along? Is that what the Liberal Party's for? Should they have been paying higher taxes for the last 20 years? We think they've been paying reasonable taxes and ought to keep that land in forest production.

I think it's an excellent bill, it's long overdue and I commend the Minister of Forests for bringing it forward. I'm going to sit down now, and I look forward to voting this amendment down and getting on with the bill.

G. Janssen: I rise in support of this long-awaited bill. The amendment is simply a tactic by the Liberal opposition to delay passage of this bill and put us back into the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which caused many of the problems that we're facing in the forest industry today.

The forest land reserve will guarantee the survival of communities on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia. I recognize that the Liberal opposition comes from the lower mainland. They're urbanites. They don't have a feeling for what it's like to live in a rural community -- a one-industry, resource-based society that is dependent on that resource and wants to ensure that the resource is there for future generations. They're more interested in the development of subdivisions, shopping malls and transit systems that bleed rural British Columbia dry and funnel money to their corporate friends and developers. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of that and well-versed in helping those friends and insiders on the lower mainland.

This bill cannot be addressed properly by members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, because they simply don't understand what happens in rural communities. They don't understand what it's like to get up early in the morning to go to work, to get your hands dirty and to come home after a hard day's work. They would rather simply sit in their comfortable air-conditioned offices in the lower mainland and watch their developer friends funnel money into their coffers, in the same way it was done with Social Credit over the last 30 years.

This act will ensure that the lifestyle developed in rural British Columbia is maintained. Yes, there will be some hardship on those private land owners. But let's recognize the benefits that have been accrued over the last hundred years by the CPR and some other private land owners. They have paid as little as $6 an acre in tax. They took the first crop off the land, continued to pay that low tax and are now taking the second harvest off. Then they turn that land over to urban development, robbing those communities forever of that resource. And then what do they do? They take those dollars, put them in their pockets and move to their comfortable air-conditioned offices and homes in the subsidized lower mainland, with its subsidized transit systems. It is time the urbanites in British Columbia stopped bleeding rural British Columbia dry. The people in rural British Columbia recognize that. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to come to Alberni or would like to go to Duncan, where they ran him out of town on a rail.... I invite him to do that, but he won't. Let him stay in the lower mainland.

This motion put forward by members of the opposition is simply a stalling tactic to ensure that the status quo is maintained. Well, that is not what rural British Columbia and resource-based communities in British Columbia want. They want to maintain a lifestyle that has been developed over many years, so that they can stay in those small communities, away from the violence and hustle-bustle of the lower mainland, and raise their families in an environment that is strictly conducive to the family. This is what British Columbia is all about. This is what made British Columbia, and I believe with this bill we can maintain British Columbia the way British Columbians want it, not the way a bunch of fat-cat urbanite developers would like to see British Columbia: to come in, cut and run, and take their profits.

[12:00]

Noting the hour on the clock, I move adjournment of this debate until later this afternoon.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada