Hansard -- Wednesday, November 6, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 10, No. 3 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		4335

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		4335
	Cridge Centre for the Family S. Orr Ship repair industry A. Hamilton Privatization of passenger rail service K. Krueger

Oral Questions		4336
	Citizens' assembly and recall legislation J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Post-operative care beds J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen New hospital for Abbotsford J. Les Hon. G. Campbell Child care funding S. Orr Hon. L. Reid Science and technology in B.C. P. Sahota Hon. R. Thorpe Attraction of skilled workers to B.C. D. Hayer Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills		4339
	Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) (continued) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Hon. J. Murray R. Visser W. Cobb P. Bell V. Roddick B. Belsey B. Bennett R. Harris R. Hawes D. MacKay

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest from Korea. Park Jong-ki is the newly appointed consul general of Korea at Vancouver. He is visiting Victoria to make official calls on the government. The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has just concluded a meeting with the consul general and looks forward to strengthening economic ties with Korea. Consul General Park is accompanied by Consul Han Gwang Sup. Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome to our Pacific province and to this Legislature.

J. MacPhail: I'm fortunate to be able to make two greetings today. They are people that have been out fighting the corporate agenda, doing everything they possibly can to bring that corporate agenda to their knees. They've had success, and they're back with us — thinner, hungrier and eating big breakfasts: Les Leyne and Judy Lavoie from the Times Colonist. Please welcome them back.

Mr. Speaker, I do recall bringing to your attention an issue of great urgency a little while ago about the water, and I'm not sure you had a chance to do anything about it. The drought probably overtook the necessity of you investigating anything. The rains have come, and someone is pregnant. We have a problem here. Please, please do something. We have Justine Hunter, who is now pregnant, and it's time, Mr. Speaker, before it gets to you.

Hon. M. Coell: I have two guests in the gallery today, and I hope the House will make them welcome: Miranda Street, who is a grade 9 student at Claremont Secondary, and her mother, Wendy. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today are approximately 49 grade 6 students, 12 parents and several teachers from West Vancouver's Ridgeview Elementary School, led by Mrs. Kerry Fairburn, Ms. Jessye Labaj and the past PAC chair, Kim Hamilton. Our community is very proud of the writers club, the Ridgeview Dragons, the anti-bullying program and the citizenship skills taught at this school. Would the House please make these wonderful young Canadians welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: Today 75,000 workplaces across Canada are participating in the ninth annual Take Our Kids to Work Day, a career exploration program developed by The Learning Partnership. That's a national organization that's dedicated to strengthening public education across the country. There are 400,000 grade 9 students and their parents participating in that. I won't introduce all of those today — just the four that are here with us in the gallery. Would the House please welcome, from the Ministry of Education, Hilary Brown and her son, Richard Lussier, and Paul Lukaszek and his daughter, Emily. They are accompanied by Nell Ross, who's also from the ministry. I hope the House will please make them all very, very welcome.

P. Sahota: I'd like to introduce to the House my hard-working and dedicated legislative assistant, Frank Costa. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to welcome again my wife, Joy, to the House, accompanied by her son and my stepson, Grant Langill. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a number of my staff who are here to receive their long-service awards. With us today are Linda Sawatzky and her husband, Jake; Cheryl Gore and her son, Reid; Marney James and her husband, Rob Thomson; Steve Venables; Mark Aiyadurai and his wife, Ruth; and Martin Sills and his wife, Julie. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

S. Orr: I'm not the sort of person that normally gets cross. I think I'm pretty even-tempered, actually. I sit here and do my job. But I'm really cross today, and I'll tell you why. Yesterday the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant posed a question to the Minister for Women's Equality in which she said, and I quote the piece: "Can the minister explain to parents who rely on the Cridge Centre why she's forcing it to close its child care facilities?"

Now, the Cridge is in my riding, and I service my riding well. I work with these people all the time, and I can tell you again that this member has her facts wrong. The Cridge is not closing its doors. It has no intention of closing its doors. It's 129 years old, and if Bishop Cridge and his wife heard this conversation, they would roll over in their graves.

I can tell you that the organization is working with all the stakeholders, and they're working with government. They work with me pretty well every other day. If only the member had done her research, she wouldn't have said what she said and caused the grief that she caused the executive director, who spent all morning fielding off the press, and damn it, he should

A. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, you may not have heard this before, but I have more good news — good news not only for my community but for all of British Columbia. I'm proud to announce today a new era in ship repair for the Esquimalt shipyards. The Esquimalt Drydock Co., a local company, has been successful in being awarded a $13.8 million ship repair contract to refit the Lazaro Cardenas II, a 44,000-tonne refuelling tanker from Mexico. This contract will result in $8 million in local labour and $2.8 million in local supplies going straight into our economy. The daily employment levels will be in the range of 175 people.

This is the largest non-governmental ship repair contract in the drydock in the past ten years and indicates a new era and the ability of Canadian firms to compete in the world market. The local shipyard was up against six other overseas shipyards and was the successful bidder. This is a great benefit not only for my community's economy but for all of greater Victoria. This clearly shows that our shipyards are competitive and can compete with anyone in the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who is being heckled by his own members.

K. Krueger: Much has been said recently about the government's decision to focus on the core services of the BCR and relinquish the role of providing passenger service. Various pundits would have us believe that people of the interior are furious about the change. I've lived in the interior all my life, including many years in the Peace River country and Prince George. I can vouch that interior people are sturdy folk who do not expect others to pay their way and tend not to believe that government can provide services more efficiently than the private sector.

When the BCR was extended north of Fort St. John, the new line ran through my family's homestead — 1,600 acres near a tiny place called Buick. I remember as a kid watching a Budd car pass through our farm while I was out grouse-hunting and waving to W.A.C. Bennett as he stood at the back of it. The coming of the rail line to our area was a huge positive for the farmers, but we always expected our use of the service to pay its own way. We never thought government should rob from its other priorities like health care, education and public safety to subsidize rail service.

To those who don't think the private sector can do the job, I offer the example of the Great Canadian Railtour Co. In the eighties Via Rail had a shabby service which ran through the Rocky Mountains in the middle of the night, contributed little to the local economies and lost public money hand over fist. Via wanted out of the business. People objected, but it made its exit.

Along came entrepreneur Peter Armstrong with the train called the Rocky Mountaineer. He runs it in the daytime, when tourists can admire the brilliant beauty of our province. He overnights it in Kamloops, where we long since passed 40,000 hotel rooms per year as a direct benefit.

Our restaurants and entertainment venues thrive on it. People come back to visit because the Rocky Mountaineer introduced them to what B.C. offers. I look forward to what the entrepreneurial spirit creates to replace the BCR passenger service, which has hemorrhaged public funds for decades. The Great Canadian Railtour Co. has demonstrated that free enterprise can do much better.

J. MacPhail: To the Premier: why do Gordon Gibson's terms of reference for the citizens' assembly make no reference to seeking public input on recall?

Hon. G. Campbell: The issue that Mr. Gibson has been asked to deal with is the issue of governance — whether we should have the first-past-the-post system, whether we should have proportional representation, whether we should have runoff ballots. That's fundamental to the constitution of British Columbia. We wanted to make sure he was focused on those issues for that agenda. He will be, and he will have a report out before the end of this year.

J. MacPhail: In February the Premier told the House that the citizens' assembly would seek public input on recall legislation. The Hansard record is here. I know the Liberals have lost a lot of support since that time.

Can the Premier tell us if that's why he's breaking his promise that he made in February to seek public

Hon. G. Campbell: No. We think the citizens' assembly is a critical part of the government reform package that we initiated when we were elected. We believe it's important that you focus on the issue of how we elect our elected representatives. In discussions with the Attorney General and with people looking at how we can have a viable, constructive public dialogue and debate with regard to how we do that, we felt it was important that we limit the terms of reference for Mr. Gibson. That's what we have done, and his report will be prepared for the people of British Columbia by the end of this year.

J. MacPhail: Well, then one wonders what the Premier meant to say in February when he said the issue of recall would be referred to the citizens' assembly. The Hansard record is there. In Delta, citizens from all political backgrounds and from all walks of life will soon launch the recall campaign against the member for Delta South because they were not told the truth about the cuts to the Delta Hospital.

The citizens themselves would like to know if the Premier intends to keep his new-era promise. Here's the promise: to "establish workable recall legislation to make it easier for the citizens to hold MLAs accountable."

He promised that in February; now he's giving them the runaround. Will the Premier keep his promise made in this chamber on February 25 and now ask the citizens' assembly to seek input and provide recommendations to make the recall of MLAs easier?

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference for Mr. Gibson have been set, and he is proceeding with that. I can tell the member opposite this: I do believe it's important that we review the issues of recall and referenda legislation. Unlike the previous government, I can tell you that this government will deliver on that commitment to the people of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: In August Jenny Brown fell and fractured her hip. Ms. Brown is 83 years old. She lives in Kelowna. Her daughters live in White Rock and Sidney. As a result of the Liberal cuts to beds in Kelowna General and to the extended care beds, the hospital had no place to put Ms. Brown only a week after her surgery, so they discharged her by ambulance to a private facility. Seven weeks later she received a bill for $6,000 for her post-operative care.

To the Minister of Health, will he agree to cover the cost for Ms. Brown's post-operative care?

J. Kwan: I'll save the minister the trouble. The daughter of Ms. Brown had actually written to the minister on September 10, outlining the case.

Hon. member, the minister has taken the question on notice. You should put a new question.

The letter was written to the minister on September 10 about Ms. Brown's case. Ms. Brown's daughter has written to the Minister of Health Services, the Minister of Health Planning, the Premier himself and her local MLA, but no one bothered to answer. Ms. Brown cannot afford the $6,000 private post-operative care she's now having to pay. Her daughter received instructions from Ms. Brown's doctor, who said what her mom needed is to ensure that she receives extended hospital care in a rehab centre within a hospital setting or extended care. She received none and was sent to a private facility.

I would like to know from the minister how that scenario for Ms. Brown fits the promise of the new-era commitment, where you get it when you need it for health care services. How does that fit the directions Ms. Brown's daughter received from her doctor for her mom's health care services?

Hon. C. Hansen: Officials in my ministry tell me I get 28,000 letters a year. I do try to read as many of them as I possibly can, particularly when they profoundly affect the care of an individual. We try to make sure those issues are dealt with as quickly as possible. I did take the question on notice. If the member has any additional information she would like to provide to me, I would be pleased to look into it as quickly as possible.

J. Les: My question today is to the Premier. For more than a decade the residents of the Central Fraser Valley and the community of Abbotsford have been waiting for a new hospital to be built in their community. This new hospital was announced and reannounced numerous times by the previous government, but unfortunately, it was never built. The current health care facilities in that region are stretched to their limit. With the rapidly expanding population, it's becoming an urgent need.

Can the Premier commit to the residents of the Central Fraser Valley and the community of Abbotsford that this hospital will actually be built?

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand the concern that people in the Fraser Valley would have. The previous government committed to build this in 1993. They pulled that commitment in 1995. They committed in….

Hon. G. Campbell: The previous government made a number of commitments which they then pulled back on, on a number of occasions. I want the member to understand this. This government will be building a Fraser Valley health centre that will meet the needs of the Fraser Valley and the people in that region of our province.

S. Orr: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Margaret Robb, who is the community partner member of the Regional Child Care Council of the capital regional district, to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

The question is: given that B.C. has received federal government dollars for early childhood development and that the Minister of State for Women's Equality and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development have stated publicly that 50 percent of this year's money would go to child care, when will the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development implement a plan, release the money and make her actions accountable to the public?

Hon. L. Reid: The Minister of State for Women's Equality and I are advancing a cross-government integrated strategy for early childhood development. I can tell you that what the province…

Hon. L. Reid: …contributes to child care is $150 million annually. The national children's agenda funding is $291 million over five years. Indeed, those investments combined over the term of this government will be well in excess of a billion dollars.

S. Orr: I would like to follow up with a question of my own to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. As part of the national children's agenda, the federal government agreed to provide British Columbia with $291 million for children's services. In turn, B.C. agreed to provide annual reports on where it spends these dollars.

Can the minister tell us what services will benefit from this agreement and when the government expects to release the report?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to respond to this question. This member and members of this House will know that this information is available on our website and has been for many months. We have met our reporting requirements to the federal government. We have produced a baseline report that indeed the hon. minister, federally, has been delighted to receive. Our baseline report has been available for many, many months. Our annual report will be available this fall.

We are well within the reporting requirements for the federal government on behalf of British Columbia. Frankly, individuals today are delighted with the information that's contained in documents that we have produced through our ministry. We have the British Columbia Early Childhood Development Action Plan: A Work in Progress. That material is readily available.

The commitment we have taken as government is to be as transparent as possible. The actual dollar value of each of the programs we fund is available, is on our website and is in the document. I invite the members to peruse it as their leisure.

P. Sahota: Last month the Science Council of British Columbia presented awards to honour outstanding achievements by the province's scientists, engineers and industrial innovators. In the New Era document the government committed to developing the fastest-growing technology industry in Canada.

Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, who I understand was a presenter at this year's dinner, tell us what initiatives the government is taking to establish B.C. as a world leader in the field of science-based technology?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I was very pleased to represent the Premier and our government at the Science Council's annual awards last week. It's always exciting to meet the science leaders of British Columbia, the leaders of

today but, more importantly, our students, the leaders of tomorrow in our science community.

In April, in partnership with the private sector, our government made an announcement of putting $45 million in a leading-edge endowment fund to create 20 chairs for scientific research. In May, in partnership with the federal government and the private sector, we announced a $28 million contribution towards a new B.C. Cancer Research Centre. We are also committed to Genome British Columbia.

I know that the steps our government is taking in partnership with the private sector, the research community, our post-secondary institutions and the federal government are going to make British Columbia a global magnet for life sciences.

P. Sahota: At the Science Council awards dinner, Denis Connor, the executive chairman of QuestAir, won the Science and Technology Champion of the Year Award. QuestAir is a company that is successfully developing fuel cell technology, and my constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds is home to QuestAir. We know B.C. is home to some of the world's most successful companies in developing fuel cell technology, so can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what steps the government is taking to improve our competitive advantage in this field?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Last week Dr. Denis Connor did receive a very exciting award for his work of championing science and research here in British Columbia. British Columbia has already been identified as a global leader in fuel cell research, with Ballard and QuestAir being here. The Premier's Technology Council has identified four pillars we should move forward on, and fuel cell research is one of those.

In June of this year I joined the federal Minister of Industry and announced a $6.5 million contribution for fuel cell demonstration projects here in British Columbia. British Columbia today is the home of the fuel cell industry for Canada. British Columbia will lead the world in the development of fuel cell technology.

D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Recently the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for immigration met to discuss a new partnership on immigration. Having a diverse population is perhaps one of B.C.'s greatest strengths, and in today's global marketplace, being able to attract skilled workers from around the world is crucial to the economic growth of B.C.

Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services update us on the results of the meeting and on what strategies are taking place to attract skilled workers to our province? Many new immigrants of British Columbia face barriers in being able to participate in the labour market. Can the minister also advise us what steps are being taken to assist new immigrants to overcome these barriers?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did have a very productive meeting of immigration ministers from across the country, including the federal minister. One of the things we certainly have in common across all jurisdictions is that as a society, we're getting older, and we are going to be increasingly looking to new immigrants to be the vehicle for economic growth in the twenty-first century.

The other thing that was very clear from our discussion is that we have emerging and, in some cases, current skills gaps across the country. In some parts of northern Saskatchewan and northern Ontario, those in the medical area are particularly acute. Fortunately, while we have some, ours are not as acute here. The ways in which we can address them are numerous, and we discussed a number of them at the conference. We have a provincial nominee program that is now up and running with over 200 applicants, and many of those have filled critical skills needs in the medical area in different parts of British Columbia.

We are also going to be looking in common with other parts of Canada at the foreign students that are being trained here. What we want to do is alert them to job opportunities, professional opportunities across British Columbia, and we're confident that once they know about the great promise and future that exist here in British Columbia, they will be an important part of filling our future skills and professional needs. I think it's a win-win for our society and for the new immigrants as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: Last day, I attempted for the benefit of members to review in part some of the considerations that gave rise to the preparation and presentation of Bill 74 earlier this week. I want to spend a little bit of time today pointing out some of the features of the bill, this new results-based legislative framework and, in particular, to draw attention to what really represents the cornerstone of this new planning process — a planning process which admittedly is designed to focus in on measuring on-the-ground results and forgoing

some of the incredibly suffocating bureaucracy and paperwork demands that accrued under the existing Forest Practices Code regime. That cornerstone document is the forest stewardship plan, and for the majority of licensees, that will be the document — that one comprehensive, all-inclusive plan — which sets out in detail the activities they intend to pursue over a five-year period on the land base to which they have entitlements as licensees.

I should say, first of all, that we have purposely in this plan legislated the requirement that there be identifiable, measurable and enforceable results. This really goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve and, I think, will achieve by virtue of this legislation.

The term of the plan is five years. It is the plan — that is, the forest stewardship plan — which must be approved and signed off by government. That becomes in this regime a fundamentally important exercise, because it represents that single point at which approvals are obtained from the Crown — ultimately from the people that own the resource, the people of British Columbia — via the government and via the Ministry of Forests and the Forest Service.

It is for an initial term of five years, and it is renewable for a further period of five years. But that, of course, is conditional, as one might expect, on the objectives of the plan, the results of the plan having been achieved and the licensee having complied not just with the plan but with all of the other legislative requirements and obligations that flow from practising forestry in British Columbia.

That forest stewardship plan — and I want to disabuse anyone of any contrary notions — is going to manage for those values that British Columbians have said loudly and clearly are important to them. It is going to manage and set guidelines and results as it relates to soil. It is going to manage and set results that must be achieved as it relates to water — water quality, water protection, the protection of inputs around community watersheds and water supplies. Those protections will be there both statutorily and by virtue of the forest stewardship plan. Wildlife, species at risk, biodiversity — we will have outcomes that are required statutorily, and they will be further addressed and refined within the confines of this forest stewardship plan.

Visual qualities are another value that we will be managing for, and cultural heritage resources. These are clearly enunciated and will be features not just of the statutory regime, but by virtue of their presence in the forest stewardship plan, they acquire the standing of legal obligations, and to run afoul of or fail to abide by or achieve the results as set out in that forest stewardship plan represents an abrogation of a licensee's legal obligations.

That forest stewardship plan, of course, does not exist and will not exist in isolation from some of the other obligations that exist for people wishing to operate on the land base. The forest stewardship plan must be consistent with local land use plans, with higher level plans. The forest stewardship plans don't exist in a vacuum. They set out obligations — that is, obligations that accrue to the licensee — in a way that says not only must they meet those specific tests; they must meet those tests in a way that is consistent with those land use plans.

Of course, the forest stewardship plans must be consistent with objectives set by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, particularly as they relate to things like species at risk. In fact, I am going to say here today that I believe that under this regime, there is better protection afforded to species at risk than what we presently have under the existing prescriptive Forest Practices Code.

There is another feature of the development of this forest stewardship plan that I want to spend a bit of time on today. It is, candidly, something that I have heard a degree of criticism on, and I think that criticism emanates from a certain misunderstanding. The legislation has only been out for a couple of days. I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to try to provide some additional information that relates to the workability and workings of the legislation.

In particular, I want to tell people across this province, who have expressed over the past number of years by their words and deeds their profound desire to be involved in land use planning and in activities that take place on the land base that they own as British Columbians, that they are going to be involved. There is specific provision made for public involvement, for public input. In fact, that will be a requirement of the forest stewardship plan before it can be approved. Before it can receive that stamp of approval from the Crown, from the decision-maker, there must be evidence submitted that reasonable accommodation and opportunity have been afforded to interested members of the public so that their views can be taken into account.

We shouldn't dismiss in any way, shape or form the extent to which British Columbians are interested in providing that input. A key feature of this legislation, this statutory framework, is to say loudly and clearly to British Columbians that their input and involvement is not only welcome; it is, in fact, essential. It is a requirement. For us to continue along the path to revitalizing our beleaguered forest industry after ten years of public policy mismanagement, we need British Columbians to be involved, and we want them to be involved.

That same sentiment, that same belief, exists with respect to the involvement of first nations, who have their own profound set of challenges, expectations and desires to be involved in the forestry economy in ways that, thus far, they simply have not been. I'm actually proud to be a member of a government that has said explicitly that we have set as a goal for ourselves the establishment, by working cooperatively in concert with first nations, of specific economic development opportunities to provide first nations and people in first nations communities with the opportunity to get involved.

I think sometimes we have become accustomed to the debate and the discussion that take place around

first nations issues in a way that suggests there are issues that relate to first nations, and then there are all these other issues. My experience over ten years of being involved in public life is that at the end of the day, first nations, their leadership and their communities are pretty much interested in the same things that everyone else is interested in — that is, a future for their families and communities.

Insofar as involvement in the forest sector represents an avenue to create that future, it is an avenue that has been fraught with obstacles for first nations. We need to change that. This is a step along that path. It doesn't solve the issue in and of itself, but it says to first nations: "We understand and accept that there is a role for you to play, an important role." By working together, we can achieve some of those very important objectives we have that relate to creating economic opportunities for people in communities that in some cases are very rural and very isolated, where, admittedly — to the extent that there are economic opportunities that can be exploited — they largely relate to our forest resource. That is a key feature of this legislative framework.

Now, in the 48 hours since the legislation has been tabled, I have heard some degree of anxiety expressed around the notion of monitoring or what in legislative terms is generally referred to as compliance and enforcement. Some of the phraseology that I have heard troubles me. I want to deal with that in specific detail in a moment.

It would also be remiss of me, having just talked about the forest stewardship plan as it relates to forestry licensees, not to deal for a moment with a couple of the unique features of that framework as they relate to woodlot licence owners. They exist in a slightly different way and practise their trade in a slightly different way. They tend to have smaller holdings, which include some private land holdings. For too long they have been caught up in the planning regime that is encapsulated by the present Forest Practices Code, which made no provision for the unique challenges they face.

We're changing that in Bill 74. On the strength of the advice we received from a number of sources, not the least of which was the B.C. federation of woodlot licence holders, I was persuaded — and I don't apologize for this — that there was a justifiable reason for creating a separate woodlot stewardship plan provision within this act that actually extends for a longer period of time. That is ten years with a renewability option for a subsequent ten years.

You only have to visit the woodlot licensees and the woodlots that exist around the province to understand why that makes sense and why I often refer to woodlot owners when I talk about the exceptional amount of energy and dedication that certain British Columbians apply to the management of their particular woodlots. It is a labour of love and, for obvious reasons, a labour of a lifetime — sometimes a lifetime that extends beyond a single generation.

We have made provision for that reality in this act. I am proud of and thrilled with the degree of cooperation and input that we received from woodlot licensees as we crafted this legislation.

Similarly, in developing this regime, particularly the notion of a forest stewardship plan, we worked with the ranchers, the Cattlemen's Association. We don't often think of them — I made mention of that yesterday — but they are intimately involved and impacted by what takes place on the land base and how this forest management regime, any forest management regime, impacts upon them in a very significant way.

We talked to them. We entertained their submissions. They made the point that cattle, unlike trees, tend to have a degree of mobility. That is a reality that impacts on their ability to operate. They talked to us about some of the challenges they face, where entrance on the land to which they have grazing rights may perpetrate damage that really takes place outside of their control.

You know what they said to me that made a heck of a lot of sense? Perhaps government could begin to give a degree of recognition to the fact that so many of these ranchers have been conducting operations in a way that complies entirely with the requirements government has set for them over years and in some cases decades, and that maybe government, for a change, could construct a statutory regime that gave some credit where credit was due. You know, that makes sense to me. That really does make sense to me.

That is what I mean when I talk about injecting a degree of common sense into this equation. I know there are people out there — we've already heard from them — who think that is wrong. They think that the only way you can govern what a rancher does on the land base is to tell them prescriptively and in detail what they can and can't do and that we shouldn't afford that rancher any degree of flexibility to conduct his or her operations in a way that makes sense practically and on the ground.

Well, I disagree with those people. They say: "We're going to be watching." Good, I say in reply. Watch. We want you to watch, because we're proud of the talent that exists out there on the part of woodlot licence holders and licensees and cattlemen. So watch. I for one invite that scrutiny.

We've heard from those people who express concerns. They characterize this as a regime in which industry will be self-policing. We've heard that term. In fact, that's not the case. In fact, on a whole series of different levels, the Crown is not only maintaining its responsibility for monitoring for compliance and enforcement, but it is actually enhancing its ability to fulfil that responsibility. I think it's important that we deal with the facts here.

It has been pointed out that within the Forest Service, the number of individuals involved in compliance and enforcement as a result of restructuring is actually going down. Well, that's true. In fact, we are in the

process of a significant downsizing, and of those positions that are disappearing, 4 percent relate to compliance and enforcement. Indeed, the compliance and enforcement section has not been spared.

Here's the difference, and I think it's an important one. I am told that for decades now — and this has gotten worse, by the way, through the advent of the Forest Practices Code after 1994-95 — those Forest Service personnel involved in compliance and enforcement adopted or assumed those responsibilities on a completely part-time basis. Why was that? Well, it's because they were in their office buried under a mountain of paperwork. They were at their desk, their boots parked beside their chair and their hardhat hanging on the wall, processing paper.

Now, I can't contemplate a forest management system for a province the size of British Columbia, with the wealth of timber resources that we have, that doesn't involve a degree of administrative processing. I mean, that's a fact of life. But the point I have made and will continue to make, and to a certain extent will rely upon the findings of the previous administration, is that the paper burden went entirely out of proportion to the results we were seeking to achieve.

Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act, represents a genuine attempt to address that imbalance so that for the first time, we are going to have upwards of 300 professionally trained compliance and enforcement officers whose dedicated, full-time task is to be out there ensuring, on the land base, that we're getting the results we want — holding licensees, holding woodlot owners and holding cattlemen to proper account. That is as I think it should be. That is what I believe the proper function of a compliance and enforcement division within the Forest Service should be about.

There has been concern expressed about the role of the Forest Practices Board, a feature of our present Forest Practices Code regime. I have heard people suggesting that it's going to disappear. The Forest Practices Board will continue in its role unchanged, as an independent watchdog for sound forest practices — period, end of story. I know there are people who will want to suggest otherwise as a means of furthering their particular arguments, but anyone that suggests otherwise is either misinformed or trying to mislead the public, because that watchdog role will continue to be exercised by the Forest Practices Board.

We have been explicit, as well, in this legislation about providing the Crown with an opportunity to step in pre-emptively when it appears that on the basis of all the evidence, the practices being employed on the ground are not going to meet with the results that are required. Call that an extraordinary override power; call it what you will. But that power is preserved and enshrined within this legislation. It is there to deal with the argument…. And you know what? I mean, I think this is, to a certain extent, a legitimate argument for people to raise. The problem with environmental degradation is if you wait until it has taken place, you've got a bigger problem. I think in many cases that's true. That's why you want to preserve to the Crown, as we have, the opportunity to step in, in extraordinary circumstances where it is abundantly clear, based on the application of any notion of sound science and sound practices, that what is being done on the land base is going to meet with environmental degradation. So we have preserved that power.

I should say that we have also enshrined in this legislation the ability for the Crown to step in, in cases of exceptional forest health challenges. There's an obvious one going on right now with respect to the pine beetle, and that exists at a scale that is almost unthinkable — an area larger than Vancouver Island in the central part of this province — devastating billions of dollars' worth of timber and over time rendering that timber ultimately valueless. But — and I would be remiss not to point this out on the record — notwithstanding the fact that this timber is infested, it maintains its structural integrity for years and remains a merchantable commodity that we need to sell and that we need to find customers for, and we're doing that.

What I wanted to preserve and what we have preserved in this legislation is the broader application of what has become known as the beetle regulation that we enacted last fall, which allows for the Crown to step in and say these are exceptional circumstances requiring exceptional and extraordinary action to preserve the health of our forests. Though there's nothing much to be achieved at this point by second-guessing past actions, one has to at least ask whether we might have alleviated in part the extent of the infestation if that approach had been taken in the past. I don't think one can say with any degree of credibility that, absent intervention from Mother Nature, we could have eliminated this — any government or any officials. But you have to ask whether or not, with a little more pre-emptive action a number of years ago, the spread of this infestation might have been slowed more than it has.

We are also very deliberately increasing the monetary penalties — the sanctions that are available for application against those licensees and others who might feel that there is an opportunity here to contravene the requirements to cut corners. I suppose it is natural that there is going to be someone or a few people out there who see this as an opportunity to cut corners. Well, they will be sadly mistaken. They will be harshly dealt with, and the penalty regime that we are applying to this legislation will confirm that. I think people who adopt that approach are in for a rude awakening.

I guess the last thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as part of this compliance and enforcement regime, is to again emphasize the degree to which we are incorporating accountability from the resource professions in ways that simply haven't existed in British Columbia. You know, biologists are trained in the very subject areas that the vast majority of British Columbians, quite rightly, say they are concerned about — whether it is soil, water quality or biodiversity. That falls

squarely within the ambit of the expertise that biologists have and are trained to have. We are going to formalize that through this and subsequent legislation by actually establishing a college of biologists — the first province in Canada to do that, the first province in this country. It's been a long time coming, and I know from my discussions with the biologists association that it is something they have been advocating for years and years — to this point unsuccessfully, but that will be ending — and they will take their rightful place amongst that group of professions and professionals who have carved out for British Columbia a reputation around the world for excellence in resource and forestry management.

I am proud that this legislation has provided the impetus for getting on with the establishment of that long-overdue requirement. It extends beyond biologists, because of course we're also going to modernize the agrologists governing legislation, again with a view to ensuring that degree of professional accountability is provided for and capitalized upon.

I guess it would be remiss of me not to mention professional foresters, who have been a part of the process in this province for decades and, as I have said in the past, have acquired a worldwide reputation for their skills, their abilities, their expertise and their discipline when it comes to governing the conduct of their members. That is a feature, I'm happy to say, of this legislative framework.

Now, I want to take a moment to also draw members' attention to the extensive consultative process that was instrumental in taking us to this point on a matter that is admittedly complex, complicated, and involves the interests of a great many British Columbians and a great many interest groups. I want to remind members that we took an approach to this that was far different from what governments of the past have done. I said this is a complicated matter, and we do need the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders.

The way you do that is by going out to talk to those people and soliciting their views. Yet I have been involved in this political exercise long enough, the better part of a decade, to know there are very clever ways for governments to go about doing that — creating the window dressing, engaging people for a limited period of time — and then those views sit on a shelf somewhere and are never heard of again. Part of the reason that happens is because governments go out and talk to the public in a vacuum. On something as complex as the Forest Practices Code, they show up in a town, if they go to the town, and they say, "What do you think?" and people respond with: "Think about what?" What we decided to do is actually give British Columbians a target, a specific document that they could examine, that they could critique, that they could dissect so they would have at least an initial understanding or impression about the direction the government intended to go in.

I was under no illusions from the outset that there were going to need to be significant changes, that the objectives we set for ourselves were going to…. It was going to be a challenge to meet them all. Yet I also said British Columbians need to know what is in our mind so that they can have an opportunity to influence it in a meaningful way, in a real way.

I just want to take a moment, because the exercise that unfolded has actually rekindled my faith to a certain extent in the positive things that can flow from a consultation exercise that is set up to genuinely elicit those views and is genuinely designed to be responsive to those views. The first thing we did was…. I spoke to some of my colleagues in this House — the member for North Island, the member from Prince George, some of the members from Victoria, from Burnaby and also, I should say, from the Kootenays — to ask them if they would take on this task of travelling this province and asking British Columbians what they thought about our initial attempt to construct a framework around which you could build a results-based Forest Practices Code. They unhesitatingly said yes. We are the better for it.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, as you know, so many times what has happened — and it has certainly happened with respect to forest management legislation in this province — is that the government's first crack at it appears in the public's domain as a bill. It gets passed, and then we spend the next five, six, seven years trying to fix it because it bears absolutely no resemblance to what is actually workable or practical. The people that it affects see it for the first time — or their first opportunity to influence that legislation exists — after it has been tabled here, and it's a lot tougher to change.

Yet my colleagues in this House — I am indebted to them, and British Columbians are indebted to them — took an extraordinary amount of time to solicit the opinions of people, agencies, licensees, stakeholder groups right across British Columbia. They went to 13 communities, and they received 250 presentations. I want everyone to know that those presentations have had a profound impact on the document that was tabled in this House a few days ago, Bill 74. I want those presenters, those 250 people, to know that we could not possibly have constructed a statutory instrument that is as workable as I think this one is…. It's not perfect. Let's not kid ourselves. It's not perfect. We've still got a lot of work to do, but it's got a darn sight better chance of accomplishing what we set out to accomplish, thanks to the input of those British Columbians.

Similarly, I want to talk about another individual who was the second half. In fact, he oversaw the overall consultation process. That's Prof. George Hoberg from the University of British Columbia. That exercise began in April and took place through the spring and summer. Professor Hoberg received almost 60 technical groups and individuals and a further 133 written submissions from, again, a wide range of stakeholders, people impacted by this shift to a results-based Forest Practices Code.

The committee, headed by the member for North Island and assisted so effectively by my other col-

leagues, produced a report, as did Professor Hoberg. I want to tell members today that those reports have had a profound impact on the final product if the final product indeed is, when I say that, the legislation that has been tabled in this House this week.

Now, some people will try to promote the argument that this was a selective process. I've heard the lines. Members of this House have heard the lines: "This is a code that was drafted by the major licensees." Not true. Dead wrong. "This was a process," they are arguing, "that excluded environmental organizations." Not true. Dead wrong. There were 46 presentations, two from the Forest Caucus, to Professor Hoberg and the MLA committee; 20 additional briefs were presented. I'm not going to list them all, but there were ForestEthics, Forest Watch, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and a whole range of environmental organizations.

Now, I cannot say for certain what it was that prompted those groups during the summer to depart from the process, to step away and decide not to continue working with government. I am told they were skeptical about the degree to which they might influence the outcome. Well, the nature of consultation is that one makes the arguments as a means of trying to influence the outcome — the same way the cattlemen did, the same way the woodlot licensees did, the same way the biologists did. Perhaps the biologists were skeptical at the outset, yet here they are with the first-ever college of biologists legislation pending.

I could spend time in this House expressing my frustration and my disappointment that members of these environmental organizations decided to step back and not involve themselves in the process, but I'm not sure what would be achieved by doing that. What I do want to do today in clear, unambiguous language is say to those environmental organizations — many of whom have demonstrated in the past the capacity for approaching these issues in a responsible way that takes into account the responsibility we all have toward working men and women in British Columbia who live in forest-dependent communities — that we want them to work with us. There is a chair at this table for you to sit down and work with the government. There are no guarantees about the outcomes that would flow, and I'm sure we'll have dandy debates and passionate arguments, but it is not good enough to take your marbles and go home and then bitch and complain…. Well, that's unparliamentary, but….

That is my invitation. That is my hope. I am not sympathetic to the argument that says that even in advance of this legislation and the regulations being finalized, certain groups would be heading off to our customers in Europe and other parts of the world threatening boycotts. It is despicable conduct that those people who would advocate this action would try to hold British Columbia families hostage before even giving this a chance.

That's what we're asking. I am extending the invitation to those environmental organizations to say: "Work with us. Scrutinize us. Scrutinize the licensees. Scrutinize the woodlot owners and scrutinize the biologists, but reserve judgment until you have at least provided all of those people — whose track record, I might add, particularly of late, is pretty darn good…. Give them that opportunity."

We have embarked upon that, I think, extensive — not I think, but that I know is extensive — consultative exercise, and as I said earlier, we have emerged with a bill that benefits greatly from the input we have received. Yes, it was a different way of doing things. And you know what? I guess it's not politically the smartest thing to do to put out a discussion paper, invite comment and then stand up, as I did when the criticism was levelled, and admit that we haven't got there yet, that we've got more work to do.

I don't mind making that admission. That's what I said back in late spring or early summer. We've done that work, and we're still not perfect. I'll guarantee you we're not perfect, as difficult as that might be for Mr. Speaker to believe, but I think we're closer. We're much closer. It's a tribute to those people who served on these committees, who took the time to present to these committees and to explain the unique challenges they face as practitioners on the land base. As I say, it has rekindled in large measure my faith in a process of public consultation which, if conducted properly, fairly and genuinely, I think can net and achieve some pretty good results.

There will undoubtedly be detailed discussion in the committee stage of this bill about some of the specific features. As I've said, there's some work to be done in terms of the drafting of legislation. We've got a big chore ahead of us in training not just our own people within the Forest Service but also stakeholders. Upwards of 10,000 people are going to need to receive some information and training. We are planning to do that between January and April, on the assumption that this bill receives the approval of the members of this House. It's a big job, a big job ahead.

I have been heartened by the response this legislation has received from across the board, across British Columbia, particularly in those parts of British Columbia where forestry matters most. But it matters right across British Columbia. No one should be under any illusions. When this V-8 engine that drives our economy sputters, it impacts all of us. It impacts our ability to provide that health care service that British Columbians expect and need, because of the revenues involved to government. It impacts on our ability to deliver a top-quality education system to our young people and at the advanced education stage.

None of us is immune. Nowhere in British Columbia are we shielded from the impact that ten years of economic decline in the forest sector have had on our province. This isn't going to change that overnight. It

isn't going to change and reverse that economic decline single-handedly, but it's going to start us on the path in the right direction. It is going to send a signal to all British Columbians and to our markets around the world that we actually believe, embrace and uphold the highest possible environmental standards, but in British Columbia we do it in a way that makes sense. We have stripped away that mountain of bureaucracy and paperwork that was suffocating not just Forest Service employees but the forest sector itself.

I invite the scrutiny. I invite those who say they are going to watch, to watch carefully. I do so because I'm confident — not so much in myself, maybe not even so much in the government, but in the professionals that have staffed the Forest Service for decades, the better part of a century. Maybe even more important than that, I am confident in British Columbians who work in forestry, whose grandparents worked in forestry and whose grandchildren can again have some hope of working in forestry if we can get this right and reverse the fortunes of an industry that can be the lifeblood of our economic life in British Columbia for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, second reading debate on Bill 74 will continue in just a moment. We're just going to take a recess for three or four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading debate on Bill 74 continues with the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: I listened with interest to the Forests minister's well-thought-out presentation of the legislation. I applaud him for covering all of the issues to date that he has faced in bringing forward this legislation. I hope that I will be seen as being as thoughtful as the Minister of Forests on what is a very, very important piece of legislation facing us.

It is enabling legislation. Everyone claims it to be enabling legislation. It is always incumbent upon legislators to examine enabling legislation very carefully, because enabling legislation by definition means that there is more to come.

What is contained in this bill? What is it that we can face head-on in this piece of legislation? It does eliminate approval of a couple of planning levels. There's no question about that. It replaces those two planning levels with the requirement for one plan, called the forest stewardship plan.

Much of the legislation repeats what is already in the Forest Practices Code. Of course, eventually this legislation will replace the Forest Practices Code in its entirety.

Because it's enabling, we must examine carefully what work still needs to be done — in other words, what's missing from the contents of the bill. It is not my judgment that says what's missing. It is the judgment of pretty much everybody out there, including the minister himself, that acknowledges that all of the outcome requirements, all of the outcome statements about forest practices in this province, are still to come. It is these outcome statements, outcome requirements, that will actually shape the forest stewardship plan itself.

Of course, compliance and enforcement methods and compliance and enforcement standards cannot be judged for adequacy at all until we know what it is the industry must comply with. Fines, whether they be doubled or tripled — administrative or otherwise — cannot be determined until we know upon which outcomes the industry will be judged to be in compliance or in violation.

All of the hard work upon which the success of the code changes will be judged, both from an economic point of view and from a point of view of ensuring sustainability, is still ahead of us. What's the time frame for completing this hard work? About five weeks, maybe six. Six weeks. That's the time left in which the government will write the regulations that will provide all of this crucial information.

The next question that will be asked is: why the tight time frame? Why the tight time frame on doing all the hard work? The real nub of the issue is still before us. Let me propose this, and I would be happy to put this on the floor of the Legislature and have people explain to me where I'm wrong.

The government has to have in place a new regulatory regime by April 1 of next year, and they have to have the public service training for that new regulatory regime commence by January of next year. Some may say: if getting these matters right takes a little longer, what's wrong with that? That's a good question.

The tight time lines make me a little suspicious, a little leery, a little wary of the real government intent here. Is this really…?

J. MacPhail: Is this really because the government will have one-third less staff by April 1 of next year because of budget cuts, one-third less staff to enforce good forest practices, and therefore must have in place a regulatory regime that can be carried out by that much smaller workforce? Are we really here carrying out an exercise that's been driven by budget cuts instead of what makes sense for the industry and the future of our forest base?

I put that question out. It's being asked by experts around the province. Why do I raise this? I hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour questioning whether I'm alleging another conspiracy theory. No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker. This is way too important a matter to do so.

I'll tell you why I am raising this. The government has made two promises which are completely in conflict — completely. First, the Liberal government wants to reduce the costs to industry of the Forest Practices Code. Fair enough — so do I. I absolutely support that promise. The government has also said, though, that this will not mean a reduction in the safe, sustainable, world-class forest practice standards that our province achieved in the 1990s. That's why I support that promise of the Liberal government. I support that too.

What that means, then, is that the reduction of industry costs in ensuring safe, sustainable, world-class forest practices will be transferred elsewhere. There are costs to maintaining those standards. Nobody denies that. The industry won't bear those costs, so we can assume that those costs will be transferred to government. Government will now pick up the costs of ensuring the achievement of those world-class standards. In fact, that's what's meant by a results-based code. That's exactly the intent of a results-based initiative. The industry doesn't bear the costs, but in order to ensure the results, government picks up the costs of compliance and enforcement.

However, here's the contradictory promise made by the same government. The Liberal government is going to cut government expenditures in order to meet their self-imposed requirement to balance the budget by 2004. The year '04-05 budget must be balanced, by law.

You can't do both promises. You can't achieve both promises. One has to give. Until we see the regulations, we cannot know which promise the government has abandoned.

I hope that will form some of the discussion on this Legislature floor. I hope the government MLAs will stand up and explain how the requirement to balance the budget, which means a one-third cut in the Ministry of Forests, a one-third cut in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and a one-third cut in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, will also allow the government to ensure the achievement of those world-class standards that we were recognized worldwide for achieving in the 1990s.

Let me just remind members that the reason why everybody stood up in this Legislature and voted for the Forest Practices Code in the mid-1990s was because we were facing some very, very strong criticism from elsewhere in the world about our forest practices. Whether that critique was a perception only or a reality will be a long debate. I actually thought they were based on reality, but that is why everyone stood in this Legislature and voted for the Forest Practices Code: to end that debilitating, devastating criticism of British Columbia forest practices.

On this legislation, Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act, we need to really, really make one thing clear. This is not the new Forest Practices Code. It is not. I was a little confused when this legislation was introduced and when I read the legislation. I had a full 12 hours to read the legislation before I thought I might have to speak to it, but I've now had 36 hours. Sorry, I guess it's 48 hours, if we're being accurate.

When I read this act, I saw that so much of it referred to the Forest Practices Code, but the Forest Practices Code will eventually be amended and will provide a transition period, and the Forest and Range Practices Act will then have to be amended again. Two more pieces of legislation will be brought in to deal with the professional practices, and then we will have the full package of what replaces the Forest Practices Code.

So what does this legislation do? It's the enabling legislation for the new process. The new code we're all anticipating, which we know nothing about yet, is to be about outcomes or results. We've heard over and over from this government that it will be a results-based Forest Practices Code, but the results aren't there. Nobody knows what the government means by results, and you certainly can't tell from this legislation.

The Forest and Range Practices Act does mention outcomes, but they're not defined. Nor, I expect, will any of us actually get to debate those outcomes in this Legislature, because like so much of this government's other crucial legislation, the regulations that hold the key aspects, processes and changes are missing. My question to each and every Liberal MLA is: how are we going to have an open public debate in this House on the results-based code when we don't have access to the vital information?

It's not acceptable that the government discusses this in its caucus meetings behind closed doors. It's not acceptable that the government discusses and decides this in a closed cabinet meeting. My question to everyone here is: when do we debate the substance of the results-based code in a public way, in a way that the public can judge the legislators they elected?

I don't single out the Minister of Forests on this practice. It has become an all-too-common trend with the Liberal government. They bring in legislation for debate, but they leave the vital regulations with all the key changes hidden in their offices away from public scrutiny.

They did that with Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act; and Bill 27, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. The Liberals brought in sweeping and disturbing changes to welfare, but they kept the details hidden so we couldn't debate them. It is only by public reaction to the enforcement of those same regulations that any public scrutiny can occur. The Liberals did it with Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The government brought in changes to the Land Reserve Commission, but they didn't release the regulations on what the new permitted uses of the agricultural land reserve would be. The Liberals did it earlier this week with Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. It's governing, again, by regulations.

Regulations are called subordinate legislation for a reason. They are to be subordinate to legislation. This government cannot let such an important change that

will affect every aspect of our economy, our sustainability and our civil society…. They cannot let those changes occur without the public having an ability to debate those real issues. This legislation, the Forest and Range Practices Act, actually takes this governing by regulation even further. I actually ask each and every member in this chamber why the government is so determined to block debate on so many crucial issues. The public wants an open debate; they deserve an open debate.

In the first round of consultation pretty much everybody said: "It's not good enough. Go back and have a second discussion." But what's going to happen? Well, let's take a closer look at Bill 74. Thirty-one sections of the bill are about giving the government authority to make regulations. I was actually taken aback as I read part 9, "Power to make regulations," section 141: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act."

Forms are apparently the great nub of the issue the government is trying to deal with, with the industry — the paperwork. In "Forms," section 142, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe forms for this act.

In "Fees or charges," section 143, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting fees or charges. In "Security," section 144, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting deposits and security of any kind. In "Recovery of money, " section 145, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the recovery of money. In "Exemptions," section 146, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the exemption of a person, place, thing or transaction from a provision of this act. In "Criteria for exercise of discretionary powers," section 147, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the criteria that a person must use in exercising a discretionary power. In "Interpretive forest sites, recreation sites and recreation trails," section 148, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting interpretive forest sites, recreation sites and recreation trails. In "Objectives set by government," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting objectives set by government. In "Watersheds," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. In "Plans and practices," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. In "Review and comment and sharing with first nations," the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations.

Here are the other sections that I carry on with — that the regulations will be made; in what form, we don't know.

"Practices and planning — community forest agreements, woodlot licences" and "Forest resources." This is a particularly interesting section. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the protection of forest resources; roads and rights-of-way; timber harvesting practices and methods; silviculture systems and silviculture treatments; gene resources; terrain stability and soil disturbances; cutblocks, use of Crown range and range developments; notification requirements; administrative remedies; intervention, remediation and consultation; reconsideration; appeals and the commission; the Forest Practices Board; botanical forest products; chief…. Sorry. I guess that's the end of the list. No — sorry. The chief forester standards for forest practices will be by regulation. The Forest Practices Advisory Council may be established by regulation.

That's the list we can find in one place of the topics that will be decided by regulation. Why is it that we won't be debating these matters either in the public or at least in this legislative chamber?

This legislation probably needs to be very closely examined by the Minister of State for Deregulation. Does his "get rid of two regulations for every regulation you put in place" work? What does that mean for forest practices in this province?

I submit that Bill 74 should be debated with all the regulations out there for everyone to see. Without them, we have no idea what the outcomes of forest practices will be. There isn't one MLA that can stand up here and say: "I'm proud to vote for this legislation, because that outcome is in place and will protect my community." Not one. If they try, they will be made to look like fools, because the outcomes are completely unknown as of today.

Of course, those outcomes are crucial to making the code work. They're crucial to protecting the environment, and they're crucial to helping our communities be sustainable. That's why they should be debated in public.

The minister and his staff say the regulations will be ready by early December. That gives the public — people who advocate on behalf of the protection of the environment, our environmental non-government organizations, first nations, communities, workers and industry — less than five or six weeks to try and provide the input on what those outcomes will look like.

Will there be a public process on defining these outcomes? My prediction is no. Staff at the ministry have said the minister will create a public advisory council. That's good; that will be part of the new process. I also predict that the public advisory council will not be created in time to contribute to the drafting of the regulations, so how will stakeholders be involved in creating and defining the outcomes?

Well, I hope I'm wrong in predicting this, but I predict that they will get to see the draft regulations and make a comment, and that will be it — no active engagement, no active participation, no openness and no accountability. There will be a closed-door approach. Therefore, there will remain a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety in the industry and among first nations, environmental groups and communities that are dependent on the well-being of the forest industry.

Industry, even though they were all there, lined up — credit to them; they were there while the minister made his announcement — also said they're taking a

wait-and-see approach. Environmental groups are extremely worried, because they predict that the regulations will be set without consultation.

Let me just say that there's a difference between showing someone a finished product and saying, "How do you like it?" and real consultation. First nations like the Carrier-Sekani tribal council are already threatening legal action for lack of consultation and infringement on their rights in this area. I will talk more about that later.

Why are the outcomes so important? By outcomes, I mean: what are the results with which the industry must comply to ensure a sustainable forest sector? The outcomes are the cornerstone of any results-based approach. They are what define the obligations of companies to reach certain objectives around ecosystem health and around protection, biodiversity, old- growth retention, wildlife habitat retention and recreation. Those are just some of the many other valued ecosystem components.

People are naturally concerned about what the outcomes will be. To date, they have every right to be concerned. In the original discussion paper and the consultation process that ensued on the results-based code, many, many groups and individuals slammed the proposed code for its ambiguous and unclear outcome statements. It's clear by that reaction that a public process needed to occur subsequent to the failure of that first consultation.

I thought it was interesting — I bet you I'll hear this again — that somehow, because there were 21 submissions from first nations leaders on the first round of consultations, that meant that the government had lived up to its obligation. Well, that first round of consultation was a complete failure. We'll talk about that in a moment.

If this new code is to work, the outcomes must be clear and specific. They also need to respect and coincide with land use plans. Just as the land use planning process is an open and public process, the development of outcomes should be an open and accountable process. I don't want to gloss over that point. Unless there is completion of the land use process, there cannot be any workable outcomes — none.

On the ministry's capacity to comply and enforce, the minister has stated quite boldly that the new enforcement regime will bring down the hammer on non-compliers to balance the after-the-fact nature of the results-based code. No one is denying that there is an after-the-fact element to a results-based code. What I mean by that is that because there is no enforcement or monitoring during the carrying out of forestry business in our province, it's only after the fact that we can see, one, whether the outcomes have been complied with or, two, if they haven't been complied with, how severe the damage is.

I think there will be many who will make this statement or raise this question. What, in the new process, prevents the company from doing anything they want until they get caught? That question needs to be answered. The minister says that one way of doing that is to bring in hefty penalties to ensure there's deterrence.

Well, let's talk about those hefty penalties. They'll be made by regulation. Any new aspect of penalties will all be done by regulation. The level of penalties that we do know about, which this government is putting in this legislation, were there in the old Forest Practices Code. There's absolutely nothing new, but the government says that it may double or triple administrative penalties. That's the claim they're making.

What do we know about what they're going to do in that area? Nothing. We won't know until the regulations come in. How can we tell that this commitment to enforce is anything more than a wink-wink, nudge-nudge from the government to the forest companies? And if that's not the case, prove it. Bring in some legislation that clearly states how this enforcement mechanism will work. But if it is the industry sitting with the government and drafting the application of these administrative penalties, we will be ridiculed around the world.

I actually went to the Web and drew down all the administrative penalties that now exist, and the list is long. It's discouragingly long. I think it's about 27 pages. I'm quite open to reviewing those administrative penalties and making sense of them, but if what we do is go behind closed doors and say that there will now be one page of administrative penalties, and if you get caught you'll pay double or triple, how is that progress? How will the public know what administrative penalties are being shunted aside, discarded or abandoned, and for what reasons are they being abandoned? There is so much uncertainty around the ministry's ability to enforce compliance anyway that the public has to have a clear understanding, at a minimum, of what it is the industry is expected to comply with.

I was a little bit taken aback yesterday — it could have been yesterday or the day before; I've heard the Minister of Forests on two days — when the Minister of Forests accused the opposition of painting logging companies as the enemy. Well, that is not the case at all. I am well aware, being a citizen of British Columbia and having been one who was at one point responsible for collecting the revenues of this province, of how important the forest industry is to British Columbia.

I have recently toured a dozen…. Well, I don't want to exaggerate. In the last six months I have toured almost a dozen forest-dependent communities. I'm going to two more this weekend. I was visiting two the weekend before last, and I toured several before that with my colleagues, the Liberal MLAs, on the prebudget consultation committee. I know how important the forest industry is to our economy, to our well-being and to the funding of our health and education systems, and I have the utmost respect for those who work in the industry. But the reality is that bad practices happen. Environmental degradation happens, and it is the government's responsibility to uphold the public

interest and the health of our ecosystems as one of those crucial public interests. That's what we're elected to do. That is our responsibility, and to do any less is to be negligent.

To ensure the proper management of our ecosystems, we need people on the ground monitoring the activities going on in our forests. Unfortunately, recent government actions will greatly reduce the capacity of the Ministry of Forests staff to perform the critical compliance and enforcement functions. Last week the minister cut 700 positions, and he closed 11 district offices.

Today we hear, though, from the minister — and I appreciate him being honest on the record — that there will only be a 4 percent reduction in compliance and enforcement officers. He somehow claims that the fact that they will be dedicated only to compliance and enforcement makes up for all of that. Well, we'll see. We'll be watching that carefully, but I must say, having talked to compliance and enforcement officers in recent days, much of the work they had been doing in the last two years was not about paperwork, as the minister suggested. All of those changes had already been made to get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. The compliance and enforcement officers were out in the field on the ground in the forests doing their job. Now we have fewer of them, and there are 11 fewer district offices throughout this province.

Here's the real key to all of this, Mr. Speaker. Again, let me put this out as a question rather than an assertion: will the government guarantee that there won't be further downsizing in compliance and enforcement? There are two more years of cuts coming, across the board — two more years of cuts in the Ministry of Forests; in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. We know about those. Frankly, the government is so far off target from meeting its budget requirements that I expect those two rounds of cuts will be accompanied by a third round of cuts in subsequent years.

All of the economic initiatives of this government have failed. They're not anywhere close to meeting their budget targets or meeting their balanced-budget legislation. But prove me wrong. All the Minister of Forests has to do is stand up and say: "The compliance and enforcement officers of my ministry are protected from further downsizing." That will go a long way to assuring the public, the world — those who are watching us right now — that this government's serious about ensuring a sustainable forest sector. There's also uncertainty around whether or not the new compliance and enforcement officers will actually log more hours in the field than they do now. We'll watch that carefully.

The academic literature on the results-based approach shows very clearly that that kind of approach requires intense monitoring, and I expect the minister doesn't have any idea whether he has the capacity to carry out the needed requirements. Those office closures under the new plan, the new process…. Forest stewardship plans will be required for logging activities. The Minister of Forests is going to delegate the approval of those forest stewardship plans to district managers throughout the province. The problem, of course, is that 11 district offices were just closed by the same minister — shut completely. The functions they were performing have to be picked up by the remaining district offices, placing an increased burden on the staff there. I'm sure industry is very concerned about that, and they should be.

The result we have now is a system where more demands are being placed on fewer staff spread out over an even larger area. This now provides a reduced capacity to know what is going on out in our woods, but I beg the Minister of Forests to stand up and say: "That's not the case. My ministry has been protected from further cuts."

I heard some discussion about job protection arising out of this new act. That's a legitimate issue we should all be discussing. During a time when our forest-dependent communities need strong support from government, it's interesting that not one single person is claiming that the new code will create new jobs — not one.

The minister has said there will be a reduction in costs of $3 to $5 per cubic metre, I think it is. The industry says a reduction in costs of maybe $2 to $4 per cubic metre. Neither is saying that will mean more jobs. No, no one's claiming that. Could it be that the industry and government are worried that there will be less timber, less lumber, less pulp to sell? Are they worried that some market campaigns may interfere with the selling of our B.C. product or that market campaigns may come about as a result of this legislation? I certainly hope not.

I urge everyone in this province who cares about the well-being of our future, of our natural resources and of forest-dependent communities to do everything to work with this government to prevent market campaigns being waged against British Columbians. Yet I also know there are many out there who are feeling like they have no other option to consider. Let me read out some of those comments. These are respected British Columbians. No one should ever accuse these respected British Columbians of being enemies of B.C. It was wrong when it was said in the nineties, and if the accusation is made now, it's wrong again.

Jessica Clogg of the West Coast Environmental Law Association said the Liberal legislation "contains no specific protections for water, fish, endangered species or similar environmental values." Industry is going to be essentially writing its own rules.

Vicky Husband of the Sierra Club, who just received the Order of Canada, is a good British Columbian. She said: "They're turning back the clock." She also said: "This is older than the old era."

Lisa Matthaus of the Sierra Club of B.C. said the code "offers loggers a loophole big enough to drive a logging truck through. If companies can establish that

they believe they were doing the right thing, they won't be penalized for causing environmental damage."

Tamara Stark of Greenpeace said: "At this point, we're sending out an alarm call to customers of B.C. forest products. This code is a very worrying sign that we are moving back to a more adversarial relationship that we don't want and we don't think the public of B.C. wants."

The West Coast Environmental Law Association has been thoughtful, though, giving to the public their thoughts on what could change and avoid market campaigns against British Columbia products. Here's what they say are the key environmental concerns. There will be less oversight of industrial logging.

Again, I'm continuing to read from the West Coast Environmental Law backgrounder on concerns. The reason I bring this forward is because there is a chance now for the minister to listen to these concerns and address them through regulation in an open and publicly accountable way.

The West Coast Environmental Law Association acknowledges that this was a fairly subjective approval criteria, but it was nonetheless better than what is in this current Bill 74.

The third concern —"Where are the Results?"— is industry self-regulation. The Forest and Range Practices Act:

Because no government approval is required for roads or cutblock plans, industry is effectively the decision-maker, and this could mean that more chances for public input will be ignored.

Fifth concern by the West Coast Environmental Law Association: "Self-reporting and Liability Exemptions."

There are also new defences for administrative penalties that may reduce the effectiveness of administrative remedies as an alternative to costly court prosecutions — for example, allowing a due diligence defence for administrative penalties, which is contrary to the recommendations of the Forest Appeals Commission and Forest Practices Board.

Even without new challenges to enforcement, administrative penalties averaged only $2,500 for the last year reported.

Those requirements are now replaced with the weaker test that they be "in the public interest" and consistent with objectives set by the government. Now, those are thoughtful concerns and could easily be addressed either in debate or in a public way with the establishment of regulations.

But perhaps the greatest area of concern in public commentary today comes from the man appointed to monitor last spring's consultation process. Dr. Hoberg of the University of B.C. said that the absence of environmental standards is striking. He said that a couple of days ago. I called Dr. Hoberg after that comment, because sometimes people are quoted out of context. I talked directly to Dr. Hoberg. The discussion was thoughtful. It was completely non-partisan, and he was very hopeful that the government would listen carefully to the recommendations he had made, but he did reiterate that the legislation was striking for its lack of environmental standards.

What else is missing from the consultation process that the minister is keen on using to back him up as validation? Let me go through the recommendations from Dr. Hoberg's report that are missing.

Again, let me just clarify for the record that Dr. George Hoberg was appointed by the Liberal government to monitor and review the consultation process around the Forest Practices Code. The Liberal MLA committee that travelled the province and the consultation process set up by the Minister of Forests to discuss changes to the Forest Practices Code were both monitored and critiqued, at the government's request, by Dr. George Hoberg.

Here are the recommendations that Dr. Hoberg made that are still missing, which still have not been acknowledged or complied with. These are not in the order of the report, but I have numbered them first, second, third.

The first recommendation of Dr. Hoberg: "The government should review the proposed regimes for environmental values and ensure that, at a minimum, they maintain existing environmental standards." That's the recommendation.

Well, we already know that not to be the case. The standards are completely absent from the legislation, and furthermore we already know that the government is going to reduce environmental standards in the code. We saw that this spring when the Minister of Energy and Mines eliminated a whole series of environmental requirements for road construction. We already know that. We pointed out at the time that he was eliminating these environmental standards even while the Minister of Forests was out consulting on exactly the same thing, and yet this Legislature rammed through those legislative changes.

The second recommendation that's missing: "The government should, in collaboration with the expert community, cooperatively develop an effectiveness, evaluation and monitoring framework for all code values and report publicly on the results of those evaluations." Well, that hasn't been done.

The third recommendation of Dr. Hoberg that's missing: "The government should conduct, in collaboration with the expert community, a scientific review of the biodiversity guidelines and results and rules for riparian protection. Ideally, these reviews would occur prior to the introduction of any new code." Again, recommendation ignored.

Fourth missing recommendation: "The government should work with industry to perform an analysis of the cost implications of the proposed results-based code and create an efficient and effective system for monitoring the costs of implementing the results-based code." Well, so far the statements of costs coming from the government and the industry are totally different.

Fifth missing recommendation: "The government should ensure sufficient resources are deployed to enforce the code properly." I've already discussed that in my previous remarks and pointed out that the ministry is going to be understaffed and underfunded, especially with this last round of 700 layoffs and office closures.

The sixth missing recommendation: "The government should put in place legally binding interim biodiversity objectives prior to the implementation of the new code. The interim objectives should be subjected to a public consultation process before they are brought into force. To the extent feasible, this should be coordinated with the recommended scientific review of biodiversity objectives."

I actually haven't heard the minister address this yet. Has he forgotten about this recommendation, or is he planning to actually implement it?

Seventh missing recommendation from Dr. Hoberg's report: "The government should conduct additional discussions with first nations prior to finalizing the results-based code policy decisions." Again, another ignored recommendation.

The Minister of Forests met with first nations forest practitioners a few weeks ago. At that meeting I talked to the first nations people who were there. I talked to the chair of the meeting. It was a good meeting. Everybody acknowledged that all of the work that needed to be done still needed to be done. The minister acknowledged that; the first nations acknowledged that. They thought that was the beginning of a process. Instead, they find out it was the end of a process.

Yesterday I referred in this Legislature to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, saying they had no choice but to take legal action, and the Minister of Finance said: "What a surprise." I expect that the government may soon tell

the Minister of Finance to learn to keep his off-the-cuff remarks to himself, but until they can get him under control, he speaks for his government.

Here's what that cheeky comment, that comment of disdain, was being directed toward. The Carrier-Sekani tribal council is heavily involved in forest industry activity in this province. They understand that it is the well-being of their tribal council communities that rests upon the success of forest policy changes by this government. They also know that the government has a legal obligation to consult with them on forestry reforms. So after that meeting that took place between the Minister of Forests and first nations forestry experts, they were alarmed to hear via the grapevine that the Forest Practices Code was going to be introduced. They wrote to the Premier of the province, and they wrote to the Minister of Forests, and here's what they had to say. I'm going to read just sections of this, but I'm happy to table the entire letter. Again, keep in mind that it was to this letter that the Minister of Finance goes: "Oh, what a surprise."

The letter then goes on to say…. They raise several other concerns, but because we are on the Forest Practices Code, results-based code, I am only raising that one concern in the context of this legislation. The letter concludes by saying:

This issue is key to the well-being of our province. Despite the Minister of Finance dismissing the Carrier-Sekani concerns by saying, "What a surprise," he as Minister of Finance needs to be deeply concerned about the Carrier-Sekani challenge. He knows full well that the people who invest in this province — the investment houses in New York, in Montreal, in Chicago and in Toronto — ask one question when a Minister of Finance goes to visit them to encourage investment in British Columbia. They say: "When will you be able to guarantee land use certainty prior to investment?"

Their second question is: "When will you be achieving treaty settlements? When will land claim negotiations be completed?" That's question No. 1 and question No. 2 that investment houses throughout North America ask about. So what's this government doing?

I would suggest that the concerns articulated by the Carrier-Sekani and reiterated by the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — because I spoke with both of them in the last week — will be as damaging to the well-being of B.C.'s economy as any alarm being set off about market campaigns against the lumber industry. In fact, I guarantee it. It is time for the Minister of Forests, for this government, to sit down with first nations and address their legal concerns and their economic concerns and to address their legal rights and the economic rights that flow from their legal rights.

Another area where we will eventually be finding the direction of the government is around professional bodies. The government has indicated that it's going to make changes to various pieces of legislation affecting professional bodies like foresters, agrologists and biologists, and we've been told the intent is to ensure professional accountability in a results-based regime. Fair enough. We look forward to that legislation. But let me put some concerns for the minister to address and raise some uncertainties around this. There is time to answer my concerns and my questions before the legislation is introduced. We have had some discussions with the chief forester on these matters, but my questions remain.

If a professional forester, just as an example, has the obligation to uphold the public interest but is employed by a private interest, how does the forester reconcile that conflicting situation? We know that the code of ethics of the foresters has a list of ethics which they have to uphold. In those ethics, the obligation to uphold the public interest is included, but so is an obligation to the employer included. If those are at odds in their carrying out of their ethical responsibilities, how is that matter reconciled? What carries the higher obligation — the public interest or the obligation to their employer? How do they go against their employer and report that?

Yes, there's whistle-blower legislation. Section 119 has whistle-blower legislation, but I must tell you, we need to understand how that whistle-blower protection — which is the same as it was under the previous code — works with the results-based code where there is now a much greater obligation on the company professional to uphold the public interest, because the public service won't be doing it. What will happen to the professional who gets caught between their employer and their duties under the new legislation?

Also, we've been talking to the IWA and have had good discussions with the IWA. Workers want to be assured that the same vicarious liability provisions that existed under the current statute remain in place. For the public's information, this relates to the company taking responsibility for the actions of its workers unless there is a clear case of wanton or willful negligence on the part of the worker. That's vicarious liability. It existed under the old code, and workers want to know that that liability protection still exists. That protection is there on the assumption that when workers do something in the woods, it is because the company gave them that direction; therefore, the company is responsible.

Furthermore, workers are also concerned that this isn't an indication that health and safety concerns might also go to a results-based program. They want assurances that that's not going to be the case. They want assurances that there won't be fewer WCB inspections. WCB inspections, if anything, need to be increased in the forest to root out bad and unsafe practices.

Lastly on this matter, the forest education network should be involved in the training. The government should be aware that in the past, there was a tripartite process wherein industry, government and labour jointly developed a peer training program to ensure that all workers had adequate training in new legislation. They want assurances that that will be a feature again of this legislation.

I sincerely hope the government caucus MLAs don't stand up and just say that all was bad in the past, that everything will be good now and that the Leader of the Opposition was raising conspiracy theories, fearmongering and didn't know what she was talking about. I have deliberately ensured a thoughtful discussion where I posed questions for this government to address as they get up and speak, because these are the concerns that are being raised out in the community.

I want to close by discussing what else is going on in our forest sector. The results-based code is just one piece that's being discussed in every forest-dependent community, in industry, amongst environmental groups and amongst first nations. The end to the appurtenancy clause is being discussed. The working forests legislation is months down the road. That could address the issues of tenure and pricing. It could address the issues of cut control, whether it continues or goes. There's discussion about changes in the annual allowable cut. All of that is still to be determined.

You can't look at these things in isolation. If there are going to be substantial changes in those areas, what will be the impact on a results-based Forest Practices Code? We don't know, because this government is piecemealing all of these issues. We get to see a little glimpse here, and then months down the road we get to see another glimpse. Yet all of the pieces make up one picture, and every piece has to be put in place before we can possibly judge whether our province has a sustainable future and whether it will be good for the forest industry.

The softwood lumber dispute remains unresolved. Who knows what's happening on that front? The

Americans want open log markets. They want log exports. They want unfettered log exports. That will have an impact on everything that's being discussed today. It will have an impact on the well-being of the industry. Perhaps one would say that the working forest legislation we've been waiting months for and an end to the softwood lumber dispute will have far greater impact on our forest-dependent communities and the workers therein.

Yet I also know that we must know the conclusion of the softwood lumber dispute and the details that will conclude the softwood lumber dispute — whether we can possibly judge the sustainability of our industry and whether this government will live up to its commitment to protect the environment in British Columbia. I would also suggest that the industry's well-being and ability to make a profit rest far more greatly on knowing the contents of the working forest legislation and the details of a resolve to the softwood lumber dispute.

My final comment will be that until those pieces are in place, this government needs to keep an open dialogue with all of the stakeholders, with the public. It needs to keep an open mind to public input. It needs to live up to its obligation of engaging the public in these extremely important policy matters before implementing any of these changes.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The second reading debate on Bill 74 will continue after just a very short recess of two or three minutes.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to offer my support for Bill 74 in British Columbia. This is an act that doesn't just deal with the heartland of our province but actually goes to the heart of our economy and what this government is trying to accomplish as we look to building a stronger, more prosperous future for all British Columbians.

There is no industry that's more critical to our economic well-being than forestry. Literally thousands of British Columbians count on forestry for their livelihoods. Thousands of British Columbians count on forestry to pay their mortgages and to support their children's education. Thousands of British Columbians depend on forestry directly to cover off their future and to be sure that they have the kind of future they deserve.

Over the last ten years, while there has been a commitment to sustainable forest practices and environmentally sustainable stewardship, there was a significant problem. Our forests were overwhelmed with paper and with red tape. The people of this province suffered as a result of that. They suffered to the extent that a previous Forests minister from a previous government told British Columbians that the Forest Practices Code itself had cost the industry, the economy, $1 billion for no environmental benefit and no public benefit. Over 10,000 regulations were imposed as a result of the Forest Practices Code.

Now, what motivates that kind of response to public policy is, fundamentally, a lack of trust in the people who are involved in the forest industry. I want the workers of our forest industry to understand that this government trusts them. This government wants to work with them and to tap into their expertise as we build a forest industry that's not just globally competitive but globally recognized for its environmental stewardship.

We should have no illusions. Those who try to divide off those who work in the forest industry from those who care about our environment clearly do not understand the women and men who are at work in our forest industry. Those who suggest that our resource industries are somehow taking away from our environment clearly don't understand how the forest industry works.

Indeed, British Columbia's stewardship of our forests is one of our major environmental assets. One of the great things we have to offer as we look to clean up our environment, clean up our climate and reduce greenhouse gases is the incredible commitment of British Columbians to plant five billion trees over the last two decades. I believe we can do even more when we listen to the people that are at work on the ground.

It's easy for us to stand in the Legislature and lose track of the fact that there are people walking the grounds of British Columbia, the commons of British Columbia, day in and day out. They're walking to make sure we have a sustainable, healthy forest future. They're walking to make sure we understand what is at work in our forests so that we do indeed husband that resource in a way that provides for the long-term future of all British Columbians.

As I travelled the province, whether I was in Vavenby or Valemount, whether I was in Prince George or Clinton, whether I was in Terrace or Smithers, whether I was in Cranbrook or Fernie, I would meet with people who were directly and immediately involved with the forest land base, with our forest industry. These were people who cared deeply about our environmental stewardship. They were people we hired to help us make sure that as we proceeded with taking advantage of the economic asset we have, we were doing it in a way that was fundamentally sound in terms of environmental stewardship and sound science.

I can recall stopping in Salmon Arm and talking with one of our public sector employees in the Forests ministry, who said: "You know, I went to school so I could understand our forests. I went to school so I could understand how our forests were at play in the environment, what a forest ecology did. What I get to

do as a result of all that training is sit here in my office and fill out pieces of paper, which travel I know not where and accomplish I know not what." He was frustrated because he felt he could make a larger contribution on the land base, working with the people who were involved in the industry.

This piece of legislation tells all of our front-line workers that we value their expertise, we value their commitment to British Columbia's forests, and we value the contribution they will make to be sure our forests are not just well managed economically but are sustainably managed environmentally. That is an incredible resource that we have in this province.

I want to start by saying that I believe the process we used to build this piece of legislation was also something new. It was a process that brought in the expertise of our institutions of advanced learning, with Dr. Hoberg, but it was also a process that deliberately went out and invited constructive comment and constructive criticism. The member opposite, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, pointed out in her comments today that she was trying to raise some legitimate concerns.

Let me tell you this: we will take those legitimate concerns, and I know the Minister of Forests will have answers for those legitimate concerns, because every British Columbian will benefit from a strong and vital Forest and Range Practices Act that works for all of us in this province.

I think there's no question that had the previous government, which imposed the previous forest practices act on our industry and on our workers, taken time to listen and answer questions of the opposition, there would be literally thousands of British Columbians who may still be at work in this province. Throughout the 1990s, 8,500 people who depended on forestry for their livelihood lost their jobs, and there's no question that the administrative burdens we imposed was one of the reasons for that. What we want to do is work with our workers, work with our industry, work with our citizens, listen to them, learn from them and answer their concerns, so everyone in this province recognizes the global leadership we are taking in British Columbia in managing this incredibly important resource.

What I believe this legislation does is wed the twin goals of a strong and vital economy with sound, scientifically based environmental policies. It's very important for us to recognize. There are those who want people to believe that you can't have an economic activity that is environmentally sustainable. They're wrong. When you use the tools of sound scientific management of the land base of our forest industry and the economic tools that are at our disposal, you actually build a bridge between those two twin concerns and you create a bridge to the future that's not just prosperous but, then again, is exemplary. It's exemplary for its management and the sustainable way in which we proceed to develop our forest land base.

It is important to recognize that this is a huge province, and this legislation does that. Because we call it a province, we often think British Columbia is smaller than it is. It's bigger than England, France and Germany combined. If you travel this province, you know that the forests in the Peace River are different from the forests in the Kootenays. The forests in the interior wetlands are different from the forests on the coast.

As one faller said to me as I was travelling in his truck during a bit of a demonstration they were having in Terrace in 1997: "You know, the trouble with people in Victoria is you don't understand this. There's not just a coastal forest and an interior forest. There's not just a difference between those two large land masses. The forests are different from valley to valley to valley." This legislation allows our public servants, allows our professional foresters and allows our professional biologists to recognize that forests are different from valley to valley to valley. As we set the highest environmental standards, we are asking them to use their expertise, their knowledge and their creativity to make sure that our forests are managed in an environmentally sustainable manner, no matter what valley you're in, in British Columbia and no matter what forest you're working in.

There is an important aspect of this legislation that we can't forget. Mistakes may be made, but compliance is essential. Therefore, there are significant penalties included for people who do not take the responsibility of proper forest management to heart: up to a million dollars in fines and, potentially, jail time for people. This is a valuable asset. We cannot allow irresponsible management of that asset. So as we give that responsibility to folks on the ground, we also say to them: "You have an obligation to meet, and if you do not meet that obligation, you will face significant and serious penalties."

At the end of the day, this is a piece of legislation that says to all the people of British Columbia: the forests must be properly managed. This is a piece of legislation that says to all the people of British Columbia: we understand that you know how critical the forests are to our future. This is a piece of legislation that says the government understands that our most important partners as we move forward to create those environmentally sustainable forest practices that are essential to the long-term future of our forests are our forest communities, our forest land base and our forest workers. It is incredibly important for us all to understand that we are in this together. We must reflect the public interest by setting the highest standards, by demanding that those standards be met, by tapping into the resourcefulness of the people of British Columbia, by recognizing their commitment to a forest industry that is second to none.

I believe this legislation paves the way for a future which everyone in this Legislature can be proud of, a future in which people that work in forest communities can look to their families and say to them clearly: "This is where we can build the kind of future we want. This

is an industry where we can find the security we want. This is a government that wants to work with us. This is a province where we can set an example that they will look at around the world and follow with pride."

Mr. Speaker: Second reading debate continues on Bill 74 with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Hon. J. Murray: I rise to also speak in support of Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. I'd like to thank the hon. Minister of Forests for his hard work and the hard work of his team on this important legislation. I've worked closely with the minister since the beginning of this process to ensure that the environment is protected under this act. We have worked cooperatively, because we have had that objective in common.

Also, a number of my ministry staff and senior biologists have worked very closely with the Forest Service over many, many months. In fact, there were over a dozen of my ministry staff that worked for many months with the Forest Service to ensure that the environment is protected under this act. There is still hard work to come, and we will continue to work with the team that is creating the regulations.

I celebrate the Forest and Range Practices Act. I believe it is a very important piece of environmental protection legislation in British Columbia.

Some people do still cling to the outdated assumption that the economy and the environment are either-or parts of our society, that they are in conflict. The member for Vancouver-Hastings challenged our government to both carry out our promise to balance the budget and ensure achievement of world-class standards of forest management. The member claimed that those two are in complete contradiction.

They are not. We will do both of those things. Contrary to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, we know that the environment and the economy are not just not in conflict; they are very closely linked. A strong economy supports a healthy environment, and a healthy environment supports a strong economy. This is a piece of legislation that will enable us to create both.

British Columbia is Canada's most ecologically and biologically diverse province. Our province supports more than half of the country's fish and wildlife species. This diversity of ecosystems is complex and requires great care and attention to manage. As well, continuing to ensure the protection of community water supplies is of paramount importance to all British Columbians.

The Forest and Range Practices Act is an act that maintains high environmental standards and actually improves the way we protect ecosystems and critical fish and wildlife species.

With this act, our government is delivering on our new-era promise and commitment to streamline the Forest Practices Code in a way that protects the environment and establishes a workable, results-based code with tough penalties. We're fulfilling our commitment to cut the forestry regulatory burden by one-third without compromising environmental standards, and we're meeting our commitment to support a science-based approach to environmental management that ensures sustainability, accountability and responsibility.

This act will enable our government to reduce red tape that has created a huge cost burden to the forest industry. That burden has meant reduced competitiveness and lost jobs throughout the province, including in my community of New Westminster where our mills are a very important part of the local economy and employment. This new code will change that burden on our industry and that cost to our jobs. At the same time, the new code is designed to maintain and improve the high environmental standards that British Columbians and people around the world have come to expect from our forest management.

From the very beginning of this process, industry has made it very clear that they, too, recognize the need to protect the environment. Members of industry have been speaking with me over the months and encouraging me and the minister to make sure that this act and the resulting code provide strong protection for the environment. They know the demands, not only from British Columbians but also from the international marketplace, that B.C. forest products must be managed sustainably, and they have been encouraging our government to make sure the code will lead to that objective.

Under this act, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection staff will set clear requirements and establish key environmental values. There will be measurable and enforceable requirements for these values such as biodiversity, soil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. Companies will be required to prepare forest stewardship plans that adhere to local land use plans and reinforce the objectives set by my ministry biologists for species at risk and other ecological priorities.

I'd like to outline some specific areas in which biodiversity protection is maintained or enhanced under the new code. For fish and fish habitat and in riparian zones, the new code maintains strong protection. For old-growth and wildlife trees, we will now be able to take immediate action to protect them rather than waiting for companies to develop plans, as was the case under the previous code.

The code will also result in improved protection of rare and endangered species. In the past, under the previous Forest Practices Code, less than 1 percent of the area intended to be set aside to protect rare and endangered species was actually set aside. Under the new code, my ministry staff will have the sole authority needed to accelerate the establishment of these wildlife habitat areas, and the list of protected species

will more than double. My ministry will also have the sole authority needed to protect winter range for deer, elk and other ungulate species, and staff are already working with the Ministry of Forests and licensees to identify those areas that will be specified to make sure that wildlife has adequate winter range to meet its needs.

I also want to confirm that the act will protect drinking water quality. Under the new results-based code, Water, Land and Air Protection will be setting standards for the protection of water quality at water intakes and will be responsible for designating community watersheds and for setting standards for their protection. As well as setting standards, Water, Land and Air Protection staff will have a strong role in inspections, investigations and prosecutions, because clear environmental standards and then the ability to make sure they're respected are at the core of this ministry's role.

With the new act, my ministry staff will get out from behind their desks and into the field, and so will the staff from the Ministry of Forests. That's where the real work of protecting the environment occurs.

Over the past years when foresters and biologists spent their days in offices serving the demands of excessive paperwork, they were not on the ground identifying potential problems and preventing them or solving them. The focus of this act is prevention and protection, and not unnecessary paperwork. The new code is backed by tougher enforcement with dedicated staff, higher fines and regular monitoring.

The vast majority of companies today recognize the economic and ethical benefits of environmental protection. The compliance rate for the forest industry is already more than 97 percent. British Columbians want their forests to be well managed so there are jobs in the forests for future generations, and they also want the environment protected. Companies that do not respect our tough standards can expect to be punished. Those who fail to honour our standards will pay the price with fines that are two to three times higher than fines have been in the past.

Under the new act, the onus is on the companies to prove they did everything reasonable to avoid damage, or they will face fines of up to $1 million or time in jail. The results-based code that will come forward under this act includes an open and transparent evaluation and monitoring system. We will be working with experts within and outside of government to provide regular reports so British Columbians know what is happening in their forests. That's transparency.

In addition, very soon and for the first time in Canada, we will be introducing new legislation that governs professional biologists to strengthen their role in our forests, forest management and environmental protection and to ensure that biologists do comply with the standards of expertise and protection of the public interest that we expect of them.

I would like to join the Minister of Forests in thanking the many, many British Columbians who provided input into the development of this act that will enable the new results-based code. Amongst the many people providing input, environmental groups and people concerned about protecting the environment provided us with important feedback early on in this process. As a result of those comments, we have restored site plans, we have made changes to the original draft, and we have ensured that site plans will be available for public review and comment. We have also strengthened biodiversity protection, including standards for old-growth and wildlife tree protection. We will continue to inform, and we will continue to consult with the public as we move forward with establishing regulations enabled by this act. I am very pleased that the Ministry of Forests will be establishing an ongoing public advisory committee to review forest policy.

With input from a wide cross-section of British Columbians, our government has introduced legislation for a tough and effective results-based code. This is an important piece of environmental legislation, of which I am very, very proud. This new code takes the handcuffs off of foresters and biologists so they can practise sustainable forestry and protect the environment. It sets clear environmental standards, it improves mechanisms for protecting important wildlife habitat, and it provides for stronger enforcement. The Forest and Range Practices Act reduces red tape and increases environmental protection, and I support second reading of Bill 74.

R. Visser: Well, today, I think, is a great day for British Columbia, and I'm happy to stand here in this House after a long and frustrating time over the last decade or so of watching forest policy being developed in this city, in this chamber, that affected my life, my friends' lives, my neighbours' lives and the lives of the people in my community.

I'm happy to stand here today and tell the people of my communities that a new era is indeed upon us. We are building forest policy in a way that's right for all British Columbians, and it's been long overdue.

I was given the honour — and, actually, it was an honour — to chair the MLA committee that travelled the province seeking input on the results-based forest practices code on the discussion paper the minister tabled earlier this summer. I want to read the opening paragraph of our introduction. It says: "The provincial government is keeping its new-era commitment to create a workable, results-based forest practices code that will maintain British Columbia's high environmental standards while giving the forest industry the freedom to manage for the delivery of defined results. The new code will be backed by tougher compliance and enforcement to ensure that those results are achieved." I think we've come a very, very long way to do that, and I think the forest communities of this province are going to enter into a new phase of their existence that will be tremendously exciting.

I want to talk today about the process we went through and the work of the committee. We travelled

this province. We went to 13 communities in all regions of the province. The Premier spoke a few minutes ago about the different types of regions, and we went to all of those regions. We were in Smithers, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Fort Nelson, Victoria, Nanaimo, Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Mission, Williams Lake, Kamloops and Merritt. Those are all forest-dependent communities. When we got there, the people of those communities came out and told all of the committee what they thought a results-based regime, results-based forest practices, would be like.

They told us what it's been like trying to do business in this province for the last ten years. They told us what it was like trying to go to work in the morning with red tape wrapped around all of yourself — not only in handcuffs but around your neck and around your legs, and you couldn't walk. You couldn't get anywhere in the day. Finally, many of those people in those communities gave up and went home. In fact, when you come from communities like I represent…. Some of them actually gave up and moved away. I think we're on our way to stopping that.

We spoke to individuals that were concerned about results-based forest practices. We spoke to environmental groups that were concerned about a results-based forest practices code. We spoke to first nations that were concerned. We spoke to industry. We spoke to local government. We spoke to professionals, to laypeople. You name it — they showed up, and they spent their time with us trying to teach us how the discussion paper would affect their lives and how we might do it better.

I think that when you ask the people of British Columbia what they think, when you ask the people in those communities what they think, they will give you intelligent, thoughtful, heartfelt responses that you can use. I know — and I'm thankful to the minister for this — that we did use them in developing this legislation.

It was a big process. There was the work we did as a committee, and there was the work Dr. Hoberg did, the head of forest resources management in the department of forestry at the University of British Columbia. I had never met Dr. Hoberg, but I've had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with him over the summer, talking about this issue. He's an expert on public policy development, on the development or the debate around how you develop policy. We spent a lot of time thinking about that and talking about that. I know Dr. Hoberg would say that the efforts we made to be inclusive, to bring people forward, to allow access to this debate, to put something out there to which they could speak — that discussion paper — were important. I know he would say that in the development of public policy, that is a good method. That is a way to engage with those you represent. I think he was pleased with the way we conducted ourselves as a government, the way we listened and the way we moved forward.

There's a bunch of components to this. There was the work we did as a committee, but behind the scenes there were a whole bunch of people I'm finding to be outstanding in their commitment to this province, to this forest industry, to the people of rural British Columbia and to the environment of this province. Those are the professionals that exist in the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

We had the absolute pleasure of having three or four of those people accompany us as we travelled the province, and I don't want any of us to underestimate the importance of taking with us Ralph Archibald, the director of this project — the Forest Practices Code rewrite, this results-based code. I don't want to underestimate what it was like taking Rod Davis, the director of the habitat branch for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, or Bruce Sieffert, a director in Sustainable Resource Management. When he couldn't make it, it was Warren Mitchell or Rodger Stewart from Water, Land and Air Protection out of the Cariboo.

We had those people with us. They spent days with us. They travelled with us in the buses and the planes, and they stayed with us and ate with us. They sat next to us as technical advisers and helpful individuals, listening to what the people of this province had to say about the discussion paper that, by and large, they and their staff — the people they work with — had written. They took ownership of this project. I think it was very astute to allow those people to come with us, to bring them with us to hear what British Columbians had to say.

And Chief Forester Larry Pedersen…. Over the last few weeks and months as we've built this legislation, the dedication those people have shown to this project has been remarkable. We'd get phone calls at 11 o'clock at night: "What would you think about this? How does this fit with this? What should we do about this?" and "People are saying this." Sundays, Saturdays…. These guys criss-crossed the province. This is something I think we have all been asking for and hoped would happen for a long time.

I'm going to back everybody up to 1993 and 1994, when I was a little bit younger. Having returned to Campbell River after a few years away going to school, feeling full of oats and wanting to change the world, I decided to get involved in the development of local forest policy. I can recall a number of people in this chamber from the Cariboo who were involved in some of these issues — the CORE process, the Vancouver Island land use plan, the Cariboo land use plan — and the things we did there.

I can remember sitting in meetings as a concerned citizen, as someone whose livelihood — whose family, whose father's family, whose father's father's family — had depended on this forest industry. I was sitting in meetings with people whose minds, I know, by the time they left the meeting were on how fast they could get our presentations into the shredder. It was probably the most frustrating thing I had ever endured in my life. I vowed that at some point in my life, I would take a stand. I would get involved. I would make sure we

spent some time trying to develop policy in forestry, in mining, in aquaculture, in those natural resources we have and hold dear, which are important to the heartland, and that we do it in a sensible and thoughtful way.

The new results-based Forest and Range Practices Act is one of the first steps in that direction. One of the people who felt so much injustice in the policy debates of the nineties got to go out to the people of the province, got to accept their arguments and their input, got to bring it to Victoria, got to engage with staff, got to further engage with other stakeholders, got to craft legislation, got to bring this legislation into the House and gets to speak to it today.

It's an amazing thing, this democracy. I know this sounds lofty when it comes to how we're dealing with riparian zones and ungulate winter range and the mean gradient or the mean annual increment or the restocking standards or the culvert distance regulation — the dry stuff of forest practices. But I'll tell you, when you live in Campbell River or you live in Cranbrook or you live in Prince George, those things are part of the fibre, the facts of life, the things you think about every day as you head off to work — or the things your neighbours think about.

This is the right way to do it. I had the pleasure of sitting here and listening to the member for Vancouver-Hastings talk about all the process that needs to occur; all the things we need to talk about some more; all the things we can't do because we've got way more talking to do about things that we need to talk about, that we should have talked about and that we can't talk about and that maybe we should talk about them, because we haven't talked about them.

I also had the pleasure to sit in this chamber and listen to a Premier who stood up and said: "You know what? It's time to do." When we're busy talking about the things that we didn't talk about, which we should talk about, we've got people sitting at home. We've got people who aren't getting to work. We've got an industry that's imploding on itself. We need to change that.

As professional as the staff at the Ministry of Forests are, so are the professionals out there in the industry. Oh sure, they work for licensees; sure, they work for small companies. Some of them are consultants, but they're professionals. For the first time in a long time, this legislation is going to unleash some of the potential that's out there.

I have to sit here and listen to all of the doom and all of the gloom that the member for Vancouver-Hastings wants to talk about — the upcoming calamity in the forest industry because of this. I'm going to go home in a day or so, and I'm going to drive to Holberg and visit with some forestry engineers who are going to be delighted that they now have the ability to make decisions in the field. [Applause.]

It makes a difference. These people are young. They're educated. They care. One of the people from the staff at the ministry has a son who worked up there. He would leave his job training in the forest planning department of one of the licensees up there and go surfing on the west coast for the weekend. The people there care; these foresters care. When they make a decision…. This is the beautiful thing about the new way of doing business in forestry.

I'm here today, and I replaced somebody in an election who worked in the forest industry, who runs a machine in the forest industry and who would love to be here today saying what I have to say. He just played for the wrong team. I think that's a bit of a problem for him. He'd like to be standing here saying that the guys that work in the woods, the guy that runs the excavator, who's had the job for 25 years building logging roads on the west coast of Vancouver Island and who knows different types of rock, knows that when he shifts from granite to basalt to gravel to whatever he's got to change his techniques, that there are new things that have to occur…. When they're building a road and there's something unforeseen that comes along, he can get on the radio and say: "Jeez, engineering department? I've got a problem, Houston"— or Mr. Houston or whatever his name is. "If I do this, this is going to be okay." The engineer can now go out there and say, "You're right, Joe. You can do that. I'm going to put my stamp on it because I think you're right, and my professional training says I think you're right," and off we go. You know what? That's a great thing.

We've just empowered the people of this province, the workers in the industry and the professional support they have around them to actually get the job done and to do it in a way that makes sense. Do we, should we, can we, ought we to care that that culvert's going to be 20 metres farther down the road? God, we don't need paperwork about that, but that's what they had to do: a mountain of paperwork. Wanted to build a road. A company built a road two feet too wide — mountain of paperwork. Have an investigation. Have an undertaking. Got to bring everybody into the office, have a long discussion about it — three or four days' worth. Couple of ministry staff, couple of forest staff, couple of operators — big discussion.

We don't have to do it now. There's good reason why the road might be two feet wider in one place and two feet narrower in another. That's flexibility. That's meaningful change. That's something this industry has needed for a long, long time. Over the next couple of years as this code becomes the norm, they'll have that freedom again. They'll be able to take responsibility for what they do for a living. They'll be able to take the responsibility that they used to have and that they want again. They want to take that responsibility in this whole new world.

While I had to listen to the doom and gloom again, it reminded me just how out of touch the doom-and-gloom people can be. Over the last few years there's been a whole host of changes in the forest industry, something called certification. It didn't exist a while ago. Companies and licensees build environmental management plans. They build sustainable forest man-

agement plans now that provide them with independent third-party verification, whether it's a sustainable forest initiative, whether it's Canadian standards, whether it's forest…. There's so many of them, I can't remember them all. They're verifiable, independent third-party organizations that come and say: "You are acting on the land base in a sustainable manner. Here are your rules. Here are your procedures. Here are your follow-throughs, your checks and your balances. Here is all of the list of things you hold that are critical to the communities that surround you, to other stakeholders. Here are all those things that they hold of value. Here is how you respond to all of that. We think you're doing a good job because we're going to come and audit you every couple of years. Upon that audit, we think you've lived up to your commitments. We think you've done it right. You are now certified."

This legislation allows for some adaptation, some flexibilities there, to be able to bring all of that work that occurs inside of the framework in which they work.

For a decade we had these lofty goals. We had land use planning. We had landscape-level planning. We had biodiversity objectives. We had all these things. They put lovely labels to it. They tell us to do this and this and define this and this, so you can act this way and that way. Then they would not do it. They would not get out there and do the mapping. They would not get out there and behave in any way that would provide some of that certainty.

To fill the vacuum, some of the licensees do it anyway. They go and map for endangered species. They go and map for wildlife corridors. They go and identify biodiversity objectives and guidelines and things like that. They have done it all independently. They have taken these biologists — wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, all of these professionals out there — and brought them in, brought the communities in and developed landscape-level objectives all on their own.

We can bring all that in now. This is meaningful stuff. It's important to embrace it. It's important to recognize it. It's important to allow it to be part of the future of forestry in British Columbia. These people know what they're doing. They care. They know where they want to go. They know that if they act in a bad way on the land base, their customers somewhere might be offended. They know that if they act in a bad way on the land base, their customers are going to know about it, because there's a whole bunch of people in this province who, frankly, quite enjoy running down and telling them all about it. It's a pretty good way to be policed in some ways. It's a pretty good way to ensure that you are going to act responsibly on the land base. You know that if you want to have a customer at the end of that railroad track, you're going to have to behave appropriately in a manner acceptable to the people of British Columbia and to the people of this global environment we live in. You've got to behave. We have to allow that to be embraced. We have to recognize the burden that that is. We have to recognize the new thinking that's occurred because of that.

You know, there are a couple of other pieces of this that I think we did very well, which I want to talk about. I know the member for Yale-Lillooet will speak to this as well, but I think that we have done a great service to British Columbia. I think the minister's done a great service to the people of this province by reaching out to two very important groups: the ranchers and the woodlot owners.

You know what? When we were out on the road, we heard from ranchers. They said: "We need a new way to be recognized. We need a new regime in which we can work. Can you help us build it?"

The minister responded. The minister took staff and people and sent them out to consult with the ranchers, the range users, so that they could build a range practice that was going to work for them and make them competitive, because this isn't just about forests. It's about those cattle too.

Cindy Haddow, Water, Land and Air Protection; Rod Davis, Water, Land and Air Protection; and Ken Balaski, Ministry of Forests, spent hours and hours with a bunch of people from the cattle industry: Dave Hayward, farmer; Doug Mervyn; Judy Guichon; Duncan Barnett; the whole range group; and David Borth, the president of the cattlemen.

You know, in the middle of calving season, I've got to tell you, the best experience I had, getting up to speed on range, was the six hours I spent in the saddle on the Chutter ranch in Merritt with the member for Yale-Lillooet. That six hours actually taught me enough to almost be dangerous.

R. Visser: Darn it — yeah, I've been walking funny ever since. I haven't spent any time on a horse since I was about five and the darned thing bit me.

Listen. I went out and spent the day with a rancher near Merritt named Judy Guichon. Her ranch has won some major environmental awards. They want to steward their range in a way that is above and beyond what exists in the code today, but they have no ability to do that. They have no freedom whatsoever to do that. The Guichon Ranch wants to play, and it wants to understand the relationship between the cattle that graze and the grass and the timber resources that are there. They want to do it in a way that is efficient, that recognizes the seasons and recognizes range improvements over a long period of time. They want to recognize all of those things that make up good land stewardship, that make up good behaviour, that make these people pillars in the community.

I think the range section in this act is going to get those folks there. It's going to get them to the place they need to be, to be the types of citizens and operators that they would like to be, want to be and need to be in that competitive industry.

The other group I want to talk about are the woodlot guys. You know, they came to us in droves. Everywhere we went, there were woodlot guys. I called them the stalkers at one point, because they were third on the list everywhere we went. "I'm the woodlot guy, and I've got this complaint."

Do you know what the complaint was every time? "Whether I've got a cut of a million metres a year or 1,900 metres a year on this forest licence, I've got to fill out the same stack of paperwork. It's killing me. I can't do it. It's crazy." "My woodlot is 600 hectares." "My wood lot is 400 hectares." "What are you thinking? What are they thinking? Why are they making us do this?" You know what? We changed it. We fixed it.

Al Waters, Ministry of Forests staff; Larry Pederson, chief forester; Brian McNaughton, Chris Cunningham and other woodlot guys went into the room and worked for months trying to build a regime that's going to protect and understand those environmental values. These are people that go out every day on their own land. Many of them are professionals themselves. We gave them the freedom to operate, the freedom to plan ahead. We gave them the freedom. We've unburdened them from the mountain of paperwork. If there was an injustice in the last Forest Practices Code, it was to the woodlot owners. They were treated abominably, and we fixed it. The ministers fixed it.

You know, we didn't spend a world of doom and gloom that we hear from Vancouver-Hastings — the talk, talk, talk: "We should talk about it more. Maybe we haven't quite talked it through enough, and we've got to include these people, because they want to talk about it." You know what? We did what the Premier said. We did it. We made their life better, and that's a darned good thing.

I know the woodlot owners on the North Island, in Cranbrook and up in Smithers are pillars of the community. They've got to shop in the grocery store next to everybody else. They're going to do it right. We gave them the flexibility and the responsibility. It's been a pretty good time. To do that made me feel good. I think it should make all of us in this chamber feel good, feel important and feel like we contribute. I don't want anybody to feel like I felt ten years ago in forest policy anymore. It was not fun.

People in this province have good ideas, and we've got to embrace those ideas. We've got to put stuff out, hear the criticisms and hear the strengths. We've got to develop policy, develop legislation and pass legislation. Then we've got to get out on the ground and make it work.

This is the start of the new era of forestry in British Columbia. This is going to put us back on the map globally, competitively and environmentally, and it's going to bring some vitality and some assurance to the heartland of British Columbia, to the places that many of us live and return to every week when we're done here.

W. Cobb: Well, most everything has been said. It's hard when you come later on the list, because most everything has been said.

I have to say that the first time I met the chair of the committee, from North Island, was actually during the land use process. I met him when he came to Williams Lake the day before we put 25,000 people on the Legislature lawn because the previous government was shutting down the forest industry in my riding, and I thanked him for that participation.

As the minister mentioned, the new code will halt the job-bleeding and assist economic growth by promoting industry innovation without compromising high-level environmental standards. Those jobs are very important in my riding. We lost hundreds of jobs over the last decade. The code will continue the reduction of the red tape that has stymied productivity in this province. Without productivity, industry cannot survive.

This act is overdue and has been a long time coming. I have been asked many times why it is taking so long. My response has been that we did not want to put into effect a document that was unmanageable or more cumbersome to work with than the one we had. It was important that it would be a workable document. I remember the controversy, the huge financial burden the existing code put on government in the regulatory department and to the agriculture and forest industry.

The old code, because it was very prescriptive on almost every aspect, cost hours and hours of production time for those in the field. I recall days when my son-in-law, who is a machine operator, missed day after day of work because he was afraid to go in the woods due to a slight rain that would create ditches in the ground. He would be subject to a fine. In many cases those ruts would have been as deep on dry ground, but that made no difference to the enviro-cops, because they had to follow the book, not common sense.

The prescriptiveness of the old act was as ridiculous as ICBC having the ability to tell the glass and body shop owners how often they must dust their blinds, clean the cupboards or sweep the floors. It took millions of dollars in administration for what appeared to be no public benefit and in most cases was completely unnecessary. I believe it was a total lack of trust by the government of the day and their obsessive need for Big Brother to hold a heavy hand over the people of British Columbia.

We continue to hear from the opposition in this House of the mistrust and what would appear to be complete hatred for the people and the owners of those industries who pay the lion's share of our health care and our education in this province. I was very pleased to see that the IWA supported the new code. I worked extensively with the IWA in the Cariboo when we were going through the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, and I know their loss of membership is a great concern to them — not only the loss of membership but the

concern for their communities and the forest industry, which is still the backbone of our province.

This legislation will have an impact on every community in B.C., rural and urban. There were presentations made, as stated by many, many people throughout the province, and from the reports that I've had and the ones that have reported to me, those who have had input in the code are quite happy with what they're seeing. The industry is prepared to meet those same high standards and has proven through its past records that it can meet those standards, and it will. There have been many inspections in my riding, and I believe they have rated about 97 percent compliance. Many of those companies are also certified. This is not to say, as the minister mentioned, there are still not some areas that may need discussing, but with the commitment of the Minister of Forests and the MLA group that has worked on this revision, I am positive those concerns will be worked out in the regulations.

This bill should not only be less onerous and costly for everyone; it will punish the abusers. Most of all, it tells the forest and agriculture industries that we have faith in their abilities, that they are good stewards of the land and that we would like to see them get on with their jobs in a most effective and efficient way while still protecting the environment. Heaven forbid they should make a profit. I am sure that we will not be disappointed.

P. Bell: I'd like to start out by reading a quote from someone from yesterday. The quotation was a fairly simple one: "The government's job is to protect the public interest, to prevent species from going extinct and to protect their water." Well, that's exactly what the new code does. It's probably one of the first times Joe Foy of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee actually agreed with what we're doing. I'm not sure he actually said it in an agreeing way, but in fact, what the Minister of Forests has done is gone through a very, very consultative process. He's spoken broadly through many, many different communities. We've had tremendous input from all kinds of different organizations. I really believe he has bridged that gap and provided the forest community with something that will be very useful in the years to come.

I was part of the MLA travelling committee that toured throughout the province. We visited 13 different communities, and we covered virtually every corner of the province. I'm not sure whether that actually has ever been done before or not. You know, we went to Fort Nelson. They were surprised to see us. It was the first time in their memory that they'd had a committee of the Legislative Assembly travel up and actually ask for their input in terms of what they thought was important to this new results-based code. Some of the submissions were very thoughtful, very well taken.

We went to the far northeast, to Fort Nelson. We went almost as far west as you can go. I suppose Victoria is probably even further west, or Nanaimo, but we went to Prince Rupert — had some excellent input. As we move through my second reading speech tonight, I'm going to review some of the submissions we had from some of the folks in Prince Rupert. I thought they were very, very well thought out and well presented.

Then down in the Kootenays we had several different sessions. We had one in Golden and one in Nelson. I can tell you that at the one in Nelson we had, I believe, about 13 or 14 different presentations at that particular session. It was a broad, broad cross-section of individuals. In many ways I think the Nelson meeting was one of the more interesting ones, because we had folks that represented people that were concerned about watersheds and how we were going to manage watersheds. We had folks who were from the harvesting community that were concerned about how this would impact their livelihood and how they would be able to progress forward. We had folks from the licensees. We had licensees there who gave submissions to us — well thought through. They were interesting ones because they came primarily from smaller licensees, which is different than from some of the larger licensees.

We really covered the full gamut. We had environmental groups. We had one in Golden. We had a group that was concerned about some of the residual facilities that come as a result of forestry — some of the Forest Service campsites, hiking trails and so on. They were all key components of the results-based code. I thought it was very interesting, the Nelson one in particular. That was kind of the far southeast corner of the province.

Then, of course, we had one here in Victoria, we had one in Nanaimo, and we had one in Mission. I really think that as we went through the process and covered off the 13 different communities throughout the province, we were in a position to receive input.

You know, the biggest single criticism I've heard of this document so far has been from the environmental groups. They've said we didn't consult with them. Well, I have to challenge that assumption because we received 250 submissions throughout the province as

we travelled as an MLA committee. In addition to that, we had a website. Most people have access now to the Internet. There were 88,000 hits on that website. There was a broad, broad selection of folks who went into that website, took a look at it and then made suggestions. I received many, many letters individually. All in all, I believe we received about 400 actual written submissions. People took time to sit down, review the document that the Minister of Forests prepared and presented to this Legislative Assembly last May, gave some serious thought to it and then came forward with their opinions.

I think the notion that we did not consult is just simply not true. Everyone that wanted to have an opportunity to come forward and have their opinions heard, I feel comfortable was heard from. The folks who would suggest to you that we were not open just didn't take the opportunity. There were many environmental groups that were asked to come and contribute, and they declined. I think you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We certainly created the opportunities for people to give submissions. If they chose not to give submissions, then I would suggest to you that their day is over. We shouldn't be listening to the folks that refused to put the time and the effort, in that the literally 400 groups that did put in submissions took in the process. Those are the folks that we have to listen to. The ones that refused to submit…. I personally think that their day is done.

That's probably been the biggest single criticism that we have. There has been a second one, I suppose, of the new results-based code. I have another quote from the Sierra Club. Vicky Husband said yesterday: "Now we're having them police themselves in the forest. How do I think that's going to be good for the citizens of British Columbia and for the protection of the environment?" Let me tell her exactly how this is good for the environment. I was in the forestry business for about eight years. There's no one I know that better understands the complexity of the forest than the harvesting community and the licensees. That's where we make our livelihood. That's where we go out, and if we don't have sustainable forest management practices, if we don't ensure that the practices that we are utilizing are in fact environmentally friendly and sustainable, then we're going to be out of business.

There are two reasons why we're going to be out of business. The international community is not tolerant of organizations that do not practise friendly environmental practices in forestry. We are constantly under a microscope from the international community, who are monitoring the performance that we have.

The bad old days that oftentimes the environmental movement refers to are history. No one will ever allow that to occur again, in my opinion. I just can't see that as folks that utilize the forest, who actually farm the forest, we would allow ourselves to go back to that. But just in case that were to ever happen again, the penalties that the Minister of Forests has put forward on this are extremely weighty: a $1 million fine for someone who practises environmentally unfriendly practices in the forest — a $1 million fine for practice. Jail time — we now for the first time have the ability to take folks who do not practise forestry in the way it should be practised and actually send those folks to jail.

I say to you that ultimately, there will always be the odd individual who tries to cut corners. It doesn't matter whether you have a terribly prescriptive code or a more results-based code, which is where we want to move. You're still going to have the individual that's going to try to cut corners. I think we've seen it in the forests. But we also understand that more often than not, the individuals that actually report these folks who are practising poor practices in our forests tend to actually be the harvesting community or the licensees. They're the ones that are out in the bush monitoring things on a daily basis. They are in effect the eyes and the ears of the Forest Service in many ways.

The notion that we should not allow the industry to police itself on a day-to-day basis is, I think, first of all, foolish and, second of all, not true. If we move on a bit and think in terms of not only the million-dollar fines but the possibility of jail time, that's really for the abusive folks who are clearly doing things that are wrong. What we want to move to is something that's results-oriented.

I'd like to speak briefly, if I may, about the Bowron River valley. The Bowron River valley is not in my riding, but it's reasonably close, and I travel through that valley from time to time. There was a devastating outbreak of spruce beetles in the Bowron River valley back in, I guess, the late seventies. It literally devastated an entire valley from mountaintop to mountaintop, the entire length of this valley. I recall at the time — as a younger person who actually still had a little bit of hair, I guess, at that particular point; there was a little bit left — reading the newspapers. The environmental groups were screaming and saying that this was devastating and that you could in fact see this clearcut from the moon, that it was the largest clearcut anywhere in the world, which I actually don't think is factual anyway. In fact, I know it's not factual. They suggested that one of the objects you could see from the moon was this massive Bowron River clearcut.

Well, let me tell you, it's 25 or so years later now, and I actually have occasion to go out to the Bowron River valley from time to time. Let me paint this picture for you, because I think it's significant when we're talking about the context of results-based forestry. The scene in the Bowron River valley is much what you would expect to see in an area that had suffered a devastating fire perhaps 50 or 60 years ago. We increased the regeneration time significantly by planting trees in the Bowron River valley, and the entire valley is absolutely pristine and scenic now. It's very, very interesting. There's a wonderful salmon run in the Bowron River that hasn't been there for 30 or 40 years, but through some intensive fishery practices and the quality of water restoration in the valley, they've been able to bring the salmon back. Deer are abundant in the

valley, moose are abundant in the valley, and interestingly enough, for the first time in anyone's knowledge that I know of, the elk have actually moved back into that valley. There's now actually a reasonably sized elk herd, and as I understand it, there may even be an opening for hunting in the coming years if it continues to grow at the rate it is. The reason for that is we have a very, very healthy, vibrant ecosystem in that valley.

So tell me: who are the environmentalists? The ones who would have suggested to you that we allow the bugs to run rampant in that valley and kill all the stems, and not do anything — allow for natural regeneration? Or are the real environmentalists the ones that went in there and cleaned up the problem, limited the expansion of the spruce beetle in that valley, controlled it and then went back, reforested it, brought the streambeds back to the way they should be, brought the river back to the way it should be and produced this pristine environment in, say, 25 or so years that under normal circumstances would have likely taken 50, 60, 70 years under the normal course of the way the environment would work? You know, I think the notion that the only people who care about our environment are what we would refer to as environmentalists is simply not true. I think the forestry-dependent communities, foresters, loggers, harvesters and licensees of all sorts are truly the real environmentalists in society.

In reviewing, as part of our trip around the province in the 13 different communities we visited, we heard lots of concerns from different folks. Many of them, I think, were concerns that were probably legitimate, and they brought forward issues that I guess really are reasonable issues and things that we had to deal with.

One of the ones that came very quickly in the process — and we heard this over and over and over again in every community that we went to — was that the values that we were trying to achieve or the results that we were trying to accomplish were not clearly defined. The member for Vancouver-Hastings today, in her speech, suggested that we should be legislating all of those values, that it was wrong to produce those values in regulation and that we should actually legislate those values.

That type of thinking is why we have over 400,000 regulations on the books in British Columbia today. That's why we have red tape that absolutely strangles the lifeblood out of business in this province, because people try and create one-size-fits-all solutions and apply them across the board.

As the Premier said in his speech earlier, we have many different forests in this province. The forests of the Peace, which I've worked in as a harvesting contractor, were totally different from just in my area alone, the Prince George area. The forests in the Peace are one style of forest. The forests of the McGregor area are completely different, and the species you're dealing with there are different. The forests in the Vanderhoof lakes district area are substantially different again. The forests of the Mackenzie area are different.

We have all these different types of forests. To think that, notionally, we would somehow be able to actually legislate regulations for all of those different forests is just foolishness, in my opinion. I don't know how we would possibly entertain that thought. It just doesn't seem to make sense at all.

The suggestion that many people had, as we toured around the province, was that the values needed to be clearly defined. I think we've established a process for that now. We've created an opportunity where that's done through regulation. It's done through order-in-council. It's done by the Lieutenant-Governor. She has the ability to make sure that the right regulation is in the right place at the right time. I think that was a good solution to the entire issue around value or results. I think we've addressed that.

Another one of the key issues was that the information requirement for the submission of the plan was unclear. It was very loose-knit. A statutory decision-maker would have the ability to make a decision on whether or not a plan should move forward. Although that may make sense in some cases, I suppose, the idea of having more clarity around exactly what you would have to do in your forest stewardship plan seems to make a lot of sense, so we did that. We came back with a new structure and a new name, actually, for the plan: a forest stewardship plan. We think we've got something here that's going to work very well for us.

The forest stewardship plan is a plan that we'll carry forward for five years. There's an option to renew that forest stewardship plan. If you're in woodlots, you have a greater period of time to work with that forest stewardship plan. It really is a tool that's very flexible in terms of how you approach the planning process, but it's also something that establishes overall results. I want to move on in a second here and speak a bit more about results.

Another comment we received was from Van Scoffield of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. His comment was a very interesting one. His focus was that here were these registered professional foresters who go through four years of school and intensive training in the field. They receive certification, and yet the stamp they actually put on the paper means nothing, because it's checked and rechecked and rechecked. In fact, if you look at the average employee in the Ministry of Forests, it's estimated that 25 percent of the average employee's time is spent simply checking plans that a registered professional forester has already signed off on.

Now, if an engineer designs a building and places his stamp on it, that's a guarantee that the building is appropriately designed, and the building is built. It's not checked by 15 more engineers.

That really, in my view, is where we have to go with our results-based Forest Practices Code. We have to be able to allow people to take the appropriate training that they need to sign off on plans and then give

them professional accountability and rely on that accountability. I think that makes a great deal of sense. Certainly, the Minister of Forests has found that common ground in that area.

You know, you really have to give the minister a lot of credit, in my opinion. This has been a very challenging process. Certainly, we've heard many, many different views. For anyone to suggest that that is not the case is simply not telling the truth. We have, I think, found a good balance in the process.

At the end of the day, we do have the highest environmental standards in terms of results, what we expect companies to achieve, anywhere in the world. We're very proud of that. We will let that stand up against anyone, anywhere, in terms of forest practices.

One of the things the minister has done is include the concept of certification. There are many different levels of certification out there in the forests. Some are fully recognized by environmental groups, and some are not, I suppose. Many of our licensees are already certified. I think this really puts into dispute the comment that someone like Vicky Husband would make around forest companies not being interested in sound environmental practices.

In fact, the only reason why Canfor, Canadian Forest Products, is not certified today with the FSC certification model, which is the model that certainly folks like Vicky Husband and Joe Foy would like us to certify under, is because they can't get their act together and actually give us the document that says: "This is how we want you to certify." Now, if they can't even tell us where they want us to go, how are you going to get there?

That's what we have done. The Minister of Forests has taken this document, and he's created results based–oriented programs. I believe he's shown real leadership in this matter. I think that if someone accomplishes the results that will be laid out through this process, certainly they will achieve FSC certification.

One of the huge improvements that we'll see, clearly, is substantially reduced costs of planning. I think the other significant improvement we'll see is that there will be significantly fewer trees cut. Now, you ask: why would it be that under a new Forest Practices Code, a results-based Forest Practices Code, there would be fewer trees cut? Isn't our objective to actually open up the forest?

The reason is that with the amount of paper we've generated over the years in the forest industry in terms of the planning process, we're not going to have to make that paper anymore, because we won't have all those additional plans and foolish documents we had to create. Under the old code, you had to have six different levels of approval before you even thought about cutting a tree. Now, with this new code, there will be one significant plan that you'll have to endorse and have approved, and then you'll be able to move on.

I think the other notion that's worth focusing on just for a few minutes is the idea that logging practices are going to change. I can tell you, as one who was in the logging industry for a number of years, my view of this new results-based code is that logging practices will not change, in fact, virtually at all. What will change is that the planning process will be much easier in terms of pursuing permitting.

You know, when the old code was brought in, the estimates — and I believe these estimates to be true, having been in the industry — brought a cost of about $10 a cubic metre to the industry, for no reason except that they were forced to generate all these additional plans and reviews and documentation and support structures. Logging practices didn't change a whole bunch. Logging practices stayed more or less the same, because as loggers we're also environmentalists. We want to do the right thing for the environment in order to have a sustainable living.

I don't believe things changed a whole bunch before, but we created this massive amount of paperwork. Instead of having folks out in the bush actually monitoring what was going on and looking at the practices that were taking place and modifying plans as necessary, quickly and easily, you had to go through this extended process to actually have approval to cut a few trees.

A few years ago I was doing a small-scale salvage project, and we had half a dozen trees that were just kind of over this little line that was a fictitious line on a map somewhere. It wasn't actually a line or anything that was significantly different. It took about three weeks and, I'm guessing, probably something in the neighbourhood of $2,000 or $3,000 worth of time for various individuals to go harvest those six trees.

That's just foolish, but you had to take those trees because they were infested with mountain pine beetle. If you didn't take those six trees, the next year it would be 60. The year after that, it would be 600, and the year after it would be 6,000. It was the right thing to do environmentally, but the old code didn't allow us to do it in an efficient way. You know, logging practices won't change, but the planning process will change, and I think that's a very, very good thing.

We need to get foresters out of their offices and into the field to see what's actually going on — be flexible, be willing to move quickly, be willing to shift and change as necessary. Think of a stream over the years. A stream takes many, many different paths, and when you're harvesting in the bush, the same thing holds true. You have to be flexible. You have to move quickly. You have to know when one specific route perhaps doesn't make sense, and maybe you'll take another route if you're an operator of a piece of equipment.

This is, I think, a real step forward in terms of where we need to go to be able to move quickly and change as we need to. One of the other things that's very exciting for me and should be very exciting for many of the folks that have put in a tremendous amount of time in this province is the fact that the regional land use plans that have been established are not only going to be honoured — and that was one of

the concerns that was brought forward to us in our tour around the province — but they're really going to become the foundation of this new code. I think that's absolutely critical.

You know, in Mackenzie, in the Cariboo, there are two very, very high-level land use management plans. There have been a huge number of folks that have gone to a tremendous amount of time and effort to create a balanced environmental plan that meets the needs of the environmental community, the tourist business, the mining industry, the forest industry, oil and gas. All of the components come together. Through this long and evolving process, they've been able to negotiate something that's agreeable to everyone. I think it's truly commendable when you can bring that many people to the table and actually come up with a solution that's workable.

The exciting thing for the folks that were at those LRMP tables…. Make no mistake. We had many of those folks from those LRMP tables come to our sessions and present to us, but the exciting thing for those folks is that their work is going to be honoured. It's going to become the basis for this new process with the results-based code, so I'm very pleased we're doing that. I think it's absolutely key and integral to the entire process. You know, in a nutshell, 13 percent of the province is in parkland. That's protected. The LRMPs are in place. They're the ones that are defining the results we're trying to achieve.

Really, the people of British Columbia have told us where they want us to go. At those LRMP tables, the environmental community was there, and they had their input there as well. The mining community…. Everyone was there, so I think we've really achieved a nice balance.

Just to wrap up, I would like to personally congratulate the Minister of Forests. I think he has done a fantastic job in producing this new document. I think it's a whole new era for the province of British Columbia, and I say good on him. Let's go forward.

V. Roddick: Under the NDP, our forest industry went from the lowest cost producer of fibre in North America to the highest cost producer. We're fixing that. This legislation will enable our forest industry to become strong again and to provide a bright future for forestry in British Columbia. This will affect every single citizen in our province. The lower mainland is no exception; Delta South is no exception. If we want to maintain services in our communities, we need industry, we need investment, and we need our working forest.

Competition from abroad is enormous, and this competition will do anything and everything to make inroads into our marketplace, from investing in so-called environmental protests to the softwood lumber issue. Our province deserves and needs to move forward. We must be allowed to do business in a sustainable way. With this legislation we will enter into a new era of growth and prosperity.

The new code will be the cornerstone of a comprehensive forest stewardship plan, which includes water quality, wildlife, old growth and soils. Forestry is no different from agriculture. It is a sustainable and renewable resource. Good farmers and ranchers do not abuse their land because no crop will be forthcoming. Our forest companies, both large and small, fully recognize that we must look after our land so that it produces trees forever, just as our farmers and ranchers will continue to produce food forever. We still have to eat to live. Foresters, ranchers and farmers are stewards of their industry. They work tirelessly to keep the land in good heart.

Government is working with the Association of Professional Biologists of B.C. and the Association of B.C. Registered Professional Foresters to improve professional accountability by introducing Canada's first college of applied biology act and strengthening the Foresters Act and the Agrologists Act.

Any business that is still in business today has made huge changes and adaptations over the past decade. In order to survive, we've had to make those changes. Our forest industry, in contrast, has been literally smothered in recent years by overregulation and prescriptive legislation. This code will allow the necessary adaptability, innovative on-ground information and environmental standards to flourish.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will continue to have a role in inspections, investigations and prosecutions under this code. The Forest Practices Board will continue its important role as an independent watchdog for sound forest practices. The new act will continue to designate community watersheds and protect species at risk through the identified wildlife management strategy. Objectives will be set for old-growth retention. Because of reforestation and fire suppression, B.C. actually has more old growth than it did 40 years ago.

Later this session, government will introduce amendments to the Foresters Act and the Agrologists Act to provide stronger capacity to sanction poor practitioners. This results-based code contains an open and transparent evaluation and monitoring system.

British Columbia will become Canada's first jurisdiction to register and license biologists. This is excellent news for every jurisdiction. Forest companies can choose how best to achieve government objectives, but they will be held accountable for the outcome. Compliance is essential. Irresponsible management will carry serious, severe penalties.

This code was drafted after extensive consultation with the people of B.C. An MLA committee travelled the province and heard more than 250 presentations in 13 communities. The results-based code website recorded 88,000 hits and 170 registered users to its discussion forums. On top of that, UBC professor Dr. Hoberg's key recommendation was to have the government meet with industry, first nations, woodlot owners, ranchers and environmentalists. We did that. We used the feedback and Dr. Hoberg's recommenda-

This act focuses on what is to be delivered and where it's to be delivered rather than acting as a manual that prescribes how forestry and range activities are to be carried out. This new act requires licensees to provide information regarding operational plans and amendments to first nations. This is an important first step in determining first nations interests that may be impacted by proposed operations. A licensee is required to provide or share information regarding operational plans or amendments with local first nations.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management establishes land use objectives, including objectives for biodiversity. We worked with the DFO in building and evaluating riparian management zones. There are provisions in the code to protect recreation features and address recreation use. These are also in the new act.

The new code places priority on smart management. British Columbia's number one industry is forestry, and by allowing it to be more innovative, we will strengthen our economic base and provide jobs and community security across this incredible province. Mr. Speaker, this is a showpiece of legislation.

B. Belsey: Bill 74 is a bold step forward by the Minister of Forests, his staff and this government. It represents the summation of a conclusion of a consultation process with forest workers, labour organizations, contractors and first nations. It represents a consultation process that understands the impact on groups that recreate, work around and depend on our forests.

My riding is all of the above. We have all the above. North Coast residents recreate, work in and depend on their north coast forest. From Stewart to Bella Bella, from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands, forest workers have been devastated by the last decade of bureaucratic bungling and red tape that resulted in a decade of decline. Through the previous government's own admission, the previous code was costly, cumbersome and counterproductive for an industry that is the backbone of the North Coast riding. The previous government once in awhile would attempt to address the problem — a flash in the pan, so to speak.

I'm sure all of you here remember the jobs and timber accord. This was an effort by the previous government to hide behind the real problems facing our forest workers. The Premier of the day announced the jobs and timber accord in 1997. He called it the most ambitious package of job creation in the history of Canada, and he said it would create 22,000 new jobs in the forest by the year 2001. Well, that's not all. There's more. The NDP promised in a June 19, 1997, news release that the accord would deliver 22,000 new direct forest jobs and over 17,000 new indirect jobs. This was a cruel promise that devastated forest workers and their families around this province.

This legislation is designed to make a significant change to an overprescriptive code. It is designed to bring balance to a forest and range practices code in this province. The Forest and Range Practices Act has struck a balance between environmental stewardship and sustainable logging practices across British Columbia. The streamlining of these regulations will help industry and workers to prepare a stewardship plan. They can clearly see what is required in the plan, and they will understand the impact if they fail to work within their filed plan. B.C.'s new results-based Forest Practices Code will help in the forest industries. It will help to put workers back in our forests.

When the industry is back to work, people in my riding will benefit. Workers and industry alike will be able to draw on their own innovation and experience. They will be able to work knowing that their plan has been approved and that unless they choose to work outside that filed plan, ministerial intervention will be negligible. Once the forest stewardship plan and the site plans have been submitted and approved, they will be able to go to work as they said they would, when they fill out the necessary documents and get the approval of the Forests minister.

A significant change with this bill is that government will no longer tell workers and the industry how to do the job that they've been doing for years. This moves from a prescriptive, regulation-driven code to a results-based code, a code that is best summed up by a constituent of mine during a meeting that the results-based code committee held in Prince Rupert. A constituent, Mr. Alton, a hard-working logger in my riding, summed up his support for our efforts by saying this was a breath of fresh air.

I'm sure we will hear the regular rhetoric from the members opposite: "The new code puts the fox in charge of the henhouse." Maybe once they understand the compliance and enforcement part of the bill, they'll change to: "Who's going to patrol the forest and ensure compliance?" If they ever understand the compliance issue, they'll start with the all-too-familiar mantra: "Why don't you backbenchers stand up and debate the bill?" They will talk about how the environment will be devastated by mad loggers out there cutting everything they see. Next will come the hours of reading newspaper clippings and letters. As usual, their comments will be heavy on fiction and light on fact.

I don't know how many times I have had to sit and listen to the members opposite talk in this House about all the things I don't do. I don't stand up and speak against legislation. I don't stand up and speak in support of my constituents. I don't stand up and speak against government policy.

What was the comment I heard last week? It was something like: "There are plants in the hallway that have more life than the MLAs in this room, in this House." Well, those plants in the hallway could very well have more life than those of us who have to sit in this House and listen to the opposition from time to

time. Those plants in the hallway are lively, I'm sure, because of the fertilizer spread often by those members.

I was invited to work on the results-based code committee. I travelled around this province listening to the public. We heard people from all walks of life with all kinds of accreditation and experience offering all kinds of sound suggestions. You know, we listened to those presentations, and all of us made notes. We noted their concerns. We went to the minister and his staff, we discussed what we heard, and we made a positive contribution to this new bill. The next time one of these members stands and says that we've been told not to speak, that we've been muzzled by the House Leader, that he's told us not to debate the legislation, I want people to understand that I and all of the members in this House, in this government, have had an opportunity to represent their constituents when it comes to working on legislation such as Bill 74.

I have already had input into this bill, and I understand where the minister is going with this legislation. My constituents' concern with issues like salvage logging and a small business program, those working in those two types of logging…. I have passed those concerns on to the minister.

This legislation, when enacted, will see benefits throughout my riding to those that work in the forest industry. The benefits will be in the form of less red tape and less regulation. This new code is designed to reduce red tape and will eliminate 18 approval steps that waste effort without improving protection. Bill 74 will help to shorten the stack of code regulations that we so often see. We can all conjure up that image; we've seen it before — that fellow standing beside a stack of regulations. It was designed to simplify an onerous stack of prescriptive regulations that people wanted changed. People in my riding have been telling me that we need to simplify the Forest Practices Code since the day I said I was going to run. It is the backbone of my riding.

Forest workers in my riding are encouraged by the fact that the minister will phase these new regulations in over time. Approximately two years will be afforded the industry to adapt to these new regulations. In that two-year period they will have the advantage of both regulations in place. They will be able to choose the one that they want to work with. No one will be precluded from working in the forest because of a new regulation put in place.

This transition period offered to industry is proof, one more sign, that we as government listen to the people. We have listened to industry, we've listened to the workers, we've listened to union workers, and we've listened to the impact groups. We are putting together and putting in place legislation that can and will work for the industry.

The Forest and Range Practices Act, Bill 74, is a very public document. Based on public involvement and balanced with sound environmental practices, it has been presented with clear compliance-enforceable guidelines. The Forest and Range Practices Act is a forest management system focused on the real results of responsible forest management rather than the means by which it is achieved.

Earlier today I heard the Leader of the Opposition stand and attempt to speak to this bill. I heard about everything from the Minister of Finance, and then it was mining, and I believe she even had Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in the debate. I think that's a clear indication of how little understanding she has of what is becoming clearer and clearer for industry.

When it comes time to vote on Bill 74, I will be standing to support this bill, because I know that my riding and those who make a living in the forests in my riding will have a less onerous burden when it comes to filing plans, getting into the forest and making a living.

B. Bennett: I am proud to be speaking in support of Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. This act is the first of several pieces of legislation that the Minister of Forests will introduce or amend this session to improve forest management under the new code.

Let me start by answering a couple of questions that are being asked by those who are interested but who may not have had the opportunity yet to think about what this new legislation will mean to British Columbia.

Firstly, the basic question: just what is a results-based forest practices code? Very simply, it's a forest management system focused on the end result of a responsible forest management rather than the means by which it is achieved.

Secondly, how does this new results-based code differ from the old code? It's better. By being more adaptable, the new code rewards innovation. Skilled resource professionals can use the latest on-the-ground information in their work, ensuring that B.C. 's high environmental standards are maintained or exceeded. Importantly, the new code will be backed by tougher enforcement, including higher fines and regular monitoring.

I was another MLA who was fortunate to be appointed by the Minister of Forests to the MLA committee that toured the 13 communities in this province, which was very ably chaired by the member for North Island. As we went around to these 13 communities, listening to the people of the province about what they thought of this draft discussion paper, we heard very clearly that there were a lot of concerns about the discussion paper. I'm going to focus my comments this evening on the impact of that public consultation on the actual legislation.

There certainly can be no argument about one thing: the NDP Forest Practices Code increased the cost of doing business in the B.C. forest industry and was instrumental in the loss of thousands of jobs in the forest sector this past ten years. Even the then Forests minister, the former member for Cariboo South, agreed that the code was too complicated, too prescriptive and a huge drag on jobs in the forest industry.

To give credit where credit is due, the former government tried to fix their own legislation a couple of

times. Yet what they didn't get was that the only way the industrial practices in the forests of B.C. can be simplified without a loss of environmental protection is to change the way we regulate that activity in fundamental ways. That's what this bill is all about.

This bill will enable a new approach to regulating activity in public forests. It's a change that allows the expertise and innovation of British Columbia forest workers to be harnessed to achieve the outcomes on the land that meet the high standards of the public.

Under the results-based code, government and industry resource professionals are more interested in the on-the-ground results and resource protection than in process and paperwork. Government sets clear objectives and the desired outcomes. The forest companies propose the results or the strategies that will meet these outcomes and objectives. The forest operators are then held accountable for the results through a rigorous government compliance and enforcement regime.

If you have the confidence in the men and women who work in our forests and the people in our communities who care about our forests, you will support this new approach. I have that confidence in British Columbians. Furthermore, I believe that we have all of the components required to achieve the successful transition to a results-based forest practices regime, including: the skilled resource professionals in industry and government who understand the importance of careful, innovative forest management; community stakeholders who demonstrated, during the results-based consultations that I referred to, that they are prepared to play a thoughtful role in the process; a forest industry with the ability to provide high-quality and sustainable forest management; and finally, a credible third-party auditor, the Forest Practices Board, that will ensure the environment is protected.

When I travelled with my colleagues around this beautiful province from Fort Nelson and Prince Rupert to Nelson and Mission, I was truly amazed and impressed by the depth of the passion that British Columbians feel for their public forests. British Columbians love their forests. We earn our living from the forests. We play and relax in the forests. We gain spiritual benefits from our forests.

Everywhere we travelled, the people of the province came forward to express their desire that the forests be used respectfully. I remember, specifically, the comments of a Mr. and Mrs. Robinson in Golden, who expressed their concern that the government's new approach not permit a decline in environmental standards. This was an important statement for them to make. It's one I know that this government has listened to and that will be reflected in the regulations to follow.

I was also very impressed with the concern that rural community leaders had for the forests that surround their communities and the economic sustenance that those communities derive from the forests around them. I remember that Sharon Smith, the deputy mayor of Houston, presented in Smithers, and she told the MLA panel that forest companies must consult with the people before setting out to do their thing on the land base. Councillor Chris Morey presented to us in Fort Nelson and stressed the important of allowing community groups the opportunity to consult with the forest licensee on the licensee stewardship plan. Nancy Opperman in Williams Lake stated it succinctly, I think: "The results of a results-based forest code must achieve goals of the whole community, not one sector alone." This new bill enables that important consultation with communities to take place.

We also heard about the importance of consultation from the trappers, the ranchers, the guide-outfitters, the back-country tourism operators — in other words, those other people who share the use of the public forests of this province with the forest industry. These folks told us they must be given the opportunity to consult with the licensees before a plan is finalized and approved by the ministry. Well, the new act will allow for this consultation to take place prior to a stewardship plan being approved. A statutory decision-maker under the under the new act must be satisfied that a licensee has given adequate opportunity for consultation to the trapper, the Crown range-holder, the guide-outfitter, the back-country tourism operator and any other tenure holder on that land base. This portion of the act, to be fleshed out by the regulations, will be essential to building acceptance of this new regime by those who are less powerful and whose activities do not represent the same level of government revenue or the same impact on provincial economy.

As I go through this bill and at the same time review the notes I made when we went to those 13 communities, it's quite extraordinary to take note of how the questions and the concerns of the people in those communities were answered in this new legislation. For example, our committee heard on many occasions that a successful code would require the direct participation of those who work in the forests. I recall being told at more than one meeting: "A subsequent consultative step is required to get it right." Well, many people and sectors out there have had the opportunity to help develop this code over the past few months. The extent to which the various sectors respectively exploited the opportunity was up to them.

Another key concern of all those who presented to us around the province was the nature of the results or the outcomes in a results-based code. We were told in various communities around the province — and again I want to quote these folks who presented to us: (1) "Results must be concise and clearly stated"; (2) "Government must shift the focus from office approvals to field results"; (3) "Results must be ecologically realistic and achievable — don't ask us to grow fir in a spruce bog"; and (4) "Timber supplies should not be a residual value; timber supplies should have explicit recognition in a results-based code."

The new legislation enables the definitions for concise outcomes to be created. The new legislation allows

the Ministry of Forests staff to get out from behind their desks and shift the focus to field results. Industry told us the real cost savings are at the front end in paperwork. The new legislation addresses this reality by changing the focus from front-end paperwork to the outcomes that are to be achieved in the forest. The new legislation does not contain the contradictions and the frustrating catch-22s of the old code. The new legislation includes timber supply as one value of many to be considered.

Certainly another major theme that surfaced during our travels with Rod across the province with the results-based code committee was the issue of compliance and enforcement. Interestingly, there were very few people in these 13 communities who declared their categorical opposition to the concept of an outcome-based Forest Practices Code. However, some who expressed support for the move towards a performance-based regime also talked about the need for a rigorous compliance and enforcement regime.

I heard — and again I'm going to quote these folks — that the draft discussion paper puts too much reliance on strengthening enforcement and penalties. The draft discussion paper is negative and should encourage best practices and incentives. A results-based code should deliver freedom to manage. A results-based code should create the opportunity for innovation, not a "stay out of trouble" atmosphere. "The defence of due diligence is the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would we attempt to set a different standard?" — another quotation. Finally, another quotation: "Defence of due diligence is a very difficult standard to meet in court."

The vast number of companies are responsible corporate citizens and have been improving their performance in the forests of British Columbia for many, many years. In fact, of the 47,000 inspections made each year by the Ministry of Forests, there is a 97 percent compliance rate. Many companies are moving toward the various types of certification by independent third-party auditors, and this very high rate of compliance certainly will assist them in their efforts.

The major forest company in my riding of East Kootenay, Tembec Forest Products, is well on its way to voluntary Forest Stewardship Council certification. I believe that as the operators move to the new outcome-based regime, the ever-present threat that inadequate operating standards in the forests create for B.C.'s international markets, coupled with the new Ministry of Forests compliance regime, will ensure the necessary compliance. When it doesn't, the new act will penalize those operators who have not made their best efforts in the forests to achieve the outcomes they agreed to achieve.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings challenged those of us in the House today to explain how the government intends to ensure compliance with higher environmental standards, given our government's attempt to get government spending under control. I'm happy to tell the member for Vancouver-Hastings how the Ministry of Forests intends to ensure compliance and do it with fewer people in the ministry. The simple answer is that there will be more people out on the land base and a lot fewer ministry people pushing paper in the office.

Under the new regime, the onus is on the companies to prove they did everything reasonable to avoid damage, and without that proof, they face fines of up to a million dollars or time in jail. In addition, many of the administrative penalties assessed against those who do not make their best efforts will double or triple the present size. In addition to that, the Ministry of Forests will create specialized compliance and enforcement units.

The ministry is restructuring its compliance and enforcement program into an organization of specialized units that focus only on compliance and enforcement as opposed to what happens today, which is that you see compliance and enforcement staff carrying out all kinds of diverse duties in addition to their compliance and enforcement duties. Under the ministry's new structure, regional and district offices will on average have a quarter of their staff dedicated to compliance and enforcement. In addition to that, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will continue to have a role in inspections, investigations and prosecutions under the code. Finally, the Forest Practices Board will continue its important role as an independent watchdog for sound forest practices by conducting audits and investigating complaints.

There is another way that the British Columbia public can rest assured that this government is serious about helping the forest industry meet its commitments in our public forests. That's by ensuring that the professionals the forest industry relies upon for opinions on such diverse matters as wildlife habitat, soil erosion and roadbuilding can be relied upon by the public. The government is now working with the Association of Professional Biologists of B.C. and the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters to improve professional accountability by introducing Canada's first college of applied biology act and by strengthening the Foresters Act and the Agrologists Act.

Our committee out there on the land heard many times that there are professionals in this province whose professional opinion can be relied upon to ensure these high operating standards that everyone wants here in British Columbia. We heard from the registered professional foresters, the biologists, the agrologists, the engineers and the Canadian Avalanche Association. I think British Columbians should be very proud of this group of highly educated and experienced professionals, and I think British Columbians should take comfort from the fact that as their professional standards are formalized and laid out for all to see, the opinion of these professionals about the operating standards of and the outcomes achieved by the forest companies can be relied upon by the citizens of this province.

There's a group that the member for North Island, the chair of our MLA committee, referred to earlier this

evening as stalkers of the consultation process. They showed up at every meeting, and they were dogged in their efforts to be heard.

Woodlot owners from around the province told our MLA committee quite a few things, and I'll quote a few of them. "Woodlot operators are smaller entities, often one person. A woodlot operator has closer, more intimate ties to the land, direct knowledge of the land. A woodlot operator is capable of more intensive management. Many woodlot operators don't own computers. They live in rural, isolated areas. Some of them don't have electricity. They lack the finances to hire professionals, and they rarely subcontract. Woodlot operators must have a separate regime in a forest practices code. The draft results-based code discussion paper on woodlot regime was not comprehensive enough. It failed to recognize the uniqueness of woodlot management, and it was not deliverable as written."

The final quote from the woodlot operators is that the B.C. Federation of Woodlot Associations should be allowed to help draft this results-based code for their part of the code.

The B.C. Federation of Woodlot Associations got their opportunity to put their ideas directly into the new legislation. Because of their hard work with the Ministries of Forests and of Water, Land and Air Protection, the new legislation recognizes the distinct challenges and opportunities of woodlot-level management.

Woodlot licence plans will be approved for ten years, almost as long as the average term for existing forest development plans. Woodlot licence plans will be flexible so that they can be changed to meet market demands and enforce health issues without requiring the detail of former plans. In the true spirit of this often-used cliché, the treatment of forest woodlots shows that this government is serious about finding ways to reflect the diversity of B.C. and to avoid the one-size-fits-all public policy model so often used by governments.

There's another group of forest tenure holders like the woodlot operators who presented their ideas and their concerns to our committee: the ranchers or, more broadly, the range tenure holders. These hard-working British Columbians use our Crown forests in a different way from the forest companies, the trappers, the woodlot operators and the tourism operators. Ranchers are mainly interested in the grass that grows between the trees. Their perspective and their interest are sometimes opposite to the other tenure holders and even to the uneducated public.

In my area in the East Kootenay we are blessed with some of the most important and beautiful open natural grasslands in the Rocky Mountain Trench and all the wildlife and plant species these grasslands contain. The Rocky Mountain Trench is, by nature, a fire-controlled ecosystem. What that means very simply is that before settlement of the area by Europeans, the trench burned every ten years or so, leaving vast open spaces filled with natural grass varieties, huge yellow pine and larch that could withstand the fires and a unique ecosystem of flora and fauna.

However, the general public has asked successive governments over the years to work harder at fire suppression. The result has been more and more ingrowth of trees under the once-open grasslands of the East Kootenay. When our MLA committee sat in my hometown of Cranbrook, we heard a couple of things. I'll quote them.

"The present rules work against range enhancement. The results-based code must be flexible enough to allow for specific regional issues such as fire-controlled ecosystems, loss of natural grasslands, need to enhance range by removing trees for purposes other than commercial forestry." Secondly: "Range enhancement — thinning, burning, clearing — is directly related to managing forest fire fuels and should be encouraged by results-based code rules."

I know that many people in the East Kootenay who want to recover our lost grasslands in the Rocky Mountain Trench would be pleased to know the new legislation contains the kind of flexibility required by the people of the region to restore these important grasslands. There's more work to be done by government to make grasslands restoration possible, but this new legislation is a very good start.

The range portion of the new act was developed in consultation with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the wildlife scientists from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. It allows range tenure holders to prepare either a range use plan or a range stewardship plan. The choice of whether the range tenure holder will use the existing range use plan or the new range stewardship plan will depend entirely upon the proven performance of the range tenure holder. All plans will be consistent with the objectives set by government for range tenure holders. Important values such as the need to limit the growth of noxious weeds will be built into the range portion of the act.

The range use plan — that's the existing plan — will rely on the traditional approach of prescribing how to do the job, while the new range stewardship plan will not tell the rancher the how-to but what outcomes must be achieved on the range. Many ranchers have the expertise to prove they can properly manage a new forest stewardship plan, and those ranchers who don't now have the incentive to improve their operating standards and move from the prescribed range use plan to the outcomes-based regime of the range stewardship plan.

One last issue I wanted to talk about is a very small part of the old Forest Practices Code and the new act. It is but three of 176 sections, but it's very important to thousands of British Columbians who use the special places in our forests that have been set aside for recreation. I heard very clearly in my hometown of Cranbrook and in Golden, Nelson, Smithers, Kamloops and elsewhere: "Do not do away with the legislative protections for interpretive forests and other recreation assets important to communities. These assets have high per-

The new sections 56, 57 and 58, which are referred to in the new act as "Division 3 — Recreation," retain the capacity for government to designate recreation sites and trails and interpretive forests. The management of that program is, of course, changing, and there are many opportunities for non-profit organizations to get involved with the Forest Service rec program. But the Ministry of Forests, importantly, will retain the right to create these important recreation assets in B.C. 's public forests.

In conclusion, I remember when I was vice-chair of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It's an organization that represents large, medium and small businesses here in B.C. I had occasion to travel British Columbia quite a bit and meet with forest industry business owners and their employers and also with all the thousands of businesses in this province that depend largely on a vibrant forest sector for their business. What I heard over and over again over the years that I was involved with the B.C. chamber was that the biggest impediment to the recovery of the struggling forest industry and all its related suppliers was the Forest Practices Code — too complex, too much paperwork and too much unnecessary cost. In fact, there was so much unnecessary cost that B.C. went from one of the world's most efficient producers of wood fibre to one of the most costly producers of wood fibre in the world.

This new legislation will lead to the strengthening of our most important industry. It will allow the forest industry to focus its resources on the ground, rather than in the office pushing paper and filling out forms. It will also allow the industry to work towards creating new jobs for the hard-working people who work in the industry and to provide some security for those workers whose jobs have been threatened by the present Forest Practices Code. The new legislation will allow the industry to prove its achievement of the specified outcomes — that it is operating responsibly in B.C.'s forests.

I want to thank the Minister of Forests for the opportunity to work on the MLA committee that went out and listened to British Columbians. It was an interesting part of my education as a new MLA, and it was a great way to get a sense of where British Columbians are at with their forest industry and forest practices. I also want to thank the Minister of Forests for listening to me and to my colleagues on the panel.

It takes courage for any minister to send out a draft discussion paper to the whole province and then stand back while hundreds of people pick it apart. I can tell you — I was there in all 13 communities — that draft discussion paper gave our consultations a point of departure for the hours and hours of commentary by British Columbians. Without the draft discussion paper, our consultations would have had no focus, and I expect we would not be anywhere near as far along down this important road of forest policy reform as we are today.

Since becoming a politician on May 16, 2001, I've heard about a million times: "Those MLA committees that go out on the road don't really control their final report. The minister always writes whatever report he or she wants."

I suppose people should be forgiven for thinking that way after ten years of the kind of politics that we've had in this province before the last election. But I want to say here for the record, frankly, that we heard around B.C. that people did not like the draft discussion paper. We heard that more people needed to be involved with helping to form the new legislation. We heard that a major rethink of the legislation was necessary if government sincerely wanted to achieve the balance of reducing costly red tape and maintaining high environmental standards.

The committee took that message back to the Minister of Forests. What did he say? Did he say: "No way. We can't admit we didn't get it right the first time"? Did he say: "Thanks for your help, but my staff will write this report"?

I want to tell this House what the Minister of Forests said to the committee that I was a proud member of. He said: "Okay. The people have spoken. We obviously do not have it right yet. Let's get to work. Let's get people in here to talk to us about this thing, and let's get it right."

It's refreshing for British Columbians to have a minister and a government that listen. It's refreshing for British Columbians to know that this government and this minister will not be rushed into bad legislation. It must be a huge relief for British Columbians to know that their elected representatives, led by the Minister of Forests, have finally addressed the overwhelmingly complicated and brutally expensive Forest Practices Code. This government has finally given our forest industry, its operators and its thousands of employees some real hope that B.C. will once again lead Canada in economic renewal and job creation through the wise use of our renewable resource, the public forests.

R. Harris: It's a great deal of pleasure for me to be able to stand here today and speak in support of Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. I come from a very forest-dependent community. As a matter of fact, Terrace was voted forest capital of B.C. in 2001. I want to pick up on a point the previous speaker just talked about. It comes from a comment made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings when she referred to the fact that the first round of the talks was a failure.

You know, what we try to tell people all the time is that we want to put these documents out, and we ask for their input. That's exactly what the Minister of Forests did with that document. I know that when it came out, I also read it. I took that document and shared it with the existing Forest Service staff in Terrace. I spent half a day with them in the bush, talking about exactly what that document looked like, what it meant for them and how they could see it working. I sat down with a number of the major licensees; I sat down with contractors.

When I looked at it, I found a number of things in it that I didn't think were going to work for this province, certainly, in terms of getting the results we wanted and, in fact, doing what a revised forest practices code, a results-based code, should be doing. I gave my comments to the member for North Island, as the chair, and I've never been so pleased to see how well a committee has reacted to that kind of input. It took the information, vented it and thoughtfully looked at it all, and through the minister…. It is a real credit to his organization, the fact that at the end of the day he came back with a code that truly is results-based and, I think, addressed a lot of the concerns. I think that's really important.

I want to address some of my comments tonight to some of the comments that the member for Vancouver-Hastings made earlier. Earlier in her presentation she talked about tight time frames. I think what that member fails to understand, in fact, are the problems that exist today in rural communities, especially forest-dependent communities. Tight time frames are exactly what we need to be dealing with. We need to be moving on this issue.

The previous code has added such a cost. We heard the member for Delta South talk about the fact that this industry went from the lowest-cost fibre producer to the highest in North America in the 1990s. As a matter of fact, if you looked at the coast itself, the coast of B.C. in the year 1999 had the highest fibre cost in the world. A big part of that was, in fact, the Forest Practices Code and what it did to that industry.

It is, in fact, the tight time frames that we need to work at today. We need to move these issues forward. We need to get the regulations out in a timely fashion so that the industry, which is suffering today and continues to suffer, can start to move forward, can start to create some wealth. That's the point she just doesn't get. When she talked about all of the prescriptive measures that she continued to reinforce in her presentation, it just reconfirmed to me that she doesn't understand the need to get rid of the process. In fact, a results-based code that allows the professionals of this province to start to do their work, that allows industry to become flexible and deal….

More importantly, where I come from, the region of the province that I represent, falls into one of those grey areas of what we refer to as transitional zones — a timber profile that doesn't meet the coast, doesn't meet the interior. The very fixed old Forest Practices Code just doesn't work for us. We actually need to have regulations in place that do in fact reflect the great disparity we have in this province. I think this code goes a long way to doing that, and I think we should be very proud of it.

Another comment that she made. She talked about job creation — the fact that none of us are talking about job creation when we speak to this Forest and Range Practices Act. What she fails to understand is that whether it saves $2 or $5, once we start to make industry more efficient and more competitive, that allows it to flourish in a much healthier environment. It is, in fact, about being globally competitive. She doesn't seem to grasp that aspect of this debate. She doesn't grasp that everything we can do to help these industries become healthy today, which they're not, goes a long way to bringing back rural communities.

That's a big part of this, because this act…. Although I did hear the minister talk about the fact that when the forest industry is strong in this province, it helps every part of it because it helps the people of this province, and the immediate results are felt in the rural communities — in the towns that employ the loggers, the towns that employ the people and supply the support services. Those are the ones that see the immediate impact, but they are also the ones that have suffered from the downside of what we have been inflicted with over the last ten years.

I would like to talk about one comment she made. She made it under the heading of a thoughtful concern, and she quoted Lisa Matthaus of the Sierra Club. Lisa's comment, in referring to the new forest practices act, was: "This will create a loophole that loggers can drive a truck through." To me, that basically sums up exactly the problem we have in this province.

I actually come from a very strong fraternity that I am very proud of — that is, for 25 years I was a logger in this province. I know that's a very broad term, but I want to talk a bit about that. I grew up in Vancouver, and in 1972 I moved to the Queen Charlotte Islands to jump into the profession of logging. For the members, I will say this. It's a gender-neutral comment because there were as many women as men working in that industry. I'll tell you, that's a proud group of people I worked with. Whether it started from people in the cookhouse as bullcooks to fallers to equipment operators on the booms, people who choose to live in rural B.C. truly are the environmentalists of this province. They're the ones who have a lot of respect for the land.

When I went up to the Charlottes in 1972, once I got there and looked around — what I had left in Vancouver and what I saw up there — I realized that this was a lifestyle I would like to be involved in for the rest of my life. It's a lifestyle, an occupation that I was proud of. I don't think we should ever be apologizing for the forest industry and the loggers of this province, and I don't think anyone should ever be an apologist for them. We should be advocates, because it's a proud tradition and a proud trade and one that I was very proud of.

The member from north Vancouver Island speaks about it quite often. I can tell you that the lifestyle we enjoyed in the bush…. We were custodians of our back yard. I think the member for Vancouver-Hastings is convinced that if you blue-box, that makes you an environmentalist. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are the people who drive in their cars to a rally for air pollution. That isn't what makes an environmentalist. An environmentalist is someone who actually understands where they live. They understand the land, and they take care of it. It is our back yard. When I hear some of the comments about the fact that

loggers cannot be trusted, that we can't be trusted to take care of the land we cherish so much — of our homes — it actually disgusts me in a very broad sense. I think it also shows a lack of understanding of how this province works and the diversity of the people who live within it.

You know, the people I work with — engineers, professionals, foresters — have a very good understanding of what's right. I know under the old forest code back in the 1970s when I worked for the IWA, we used to sit on public advisory boards to the Forest Service where we used to consult and provide advice to the Forest Service at that time on exactly things like land use, rehabilitation of old sites. We were very actively involved then, as we are today.

One of the nice things about this code is it continues to involve the public in that discussion and that debate. It is critically important in this province that we start to recognize and move away from this whole issue of mistrust of professionals and trades, because people who are in the profession — forestry, engineers…. And now we're going to create a separate act for biologists and agrologists. They are proud of what they do, as I am proud of what I do here today, and I think anyone else in this province is proud of what they do in terms of their trade. These people know what's right for the land. We've got to start letting them use their skills. We can't be tying their hands in prescriptive manners that in many cases just don't make any sense.

The member from Prince George talked about waiting three and four weeks for cutting permits. I can tell you, as a falling contractor in the Charlottes for years, that I can remember coming up to an obstacle and waiting literally months while we went through a process of investigation, getting all the players out into the field to take a look at it — things that just made a lot of sense. I can tell you there were times in the field on rigging crews when we went into areas where we could see that, in fact, the prescription that was written up, once the timber had been felled, didn't make any sense. It didn't enhance silviculture values; in fact, it damaged. But the prescription was written, and that's the way it had to be. If you didn't follow the cutting permit exactly as it was laid out, you were in violation of the cutting permit even if you were doing something that actually enhanced the environment. If you went to try to change it, you could be waiting weeks upon weeks while it went through a process that in many cases just didn't make any sense.

When we move to this results-based code, one of the key aspects of it is that it's going to let professionals do their work. We listened to the Premier earlier today, when he made his presentation, talk about what the previous code did to this province and the fact that it cost this province $1 billion and 8,000 jobs. That is a significant number.

We listened earlier — I was very pleased, and I'm surprised that the member for Vancouver-Hastings didn't listen as well as she could — as the Minister of Forests in a very thoughtful manner actually did go through what the code will do for this province — how it will work, how the stewardship plan process works. It is the right method of managing our forests in this province. I can't speak to rangelands as much, because forests is certainly the background I come from and the one that concerns me the most because it's what impacts our community.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection speak about the collaborative effort her ministry had, and the comments she had coming back from her biologist that this code will actually improve the results we get on the land base. I believe that. I believe that no one in this House, no one in the logging industry, no one in the forest industry anywhere gets up in the morning with the idea that they're going to go out and wreak havoc on the environment. I think that when people talk about those things, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings does, they are raising the rhetoric of the debate and encouraging the things she says she's trying to avoid.

The member from Prince George talked about certification. I think that's a very important aspect of this debate. One of the thoughts left out there is that the forest industry itself over the last number of years has not been taking care of itself. Certification has become more and more commonplace in this industry. That certification has evolved over the last ten years. Probably one of the pluses of the previous act, if nothing else, is that it certainly did profile and continue to move industry in a direction that it was going anyway, and that was protecting the land. At the end of the day, it's in the industry's best interest to ensure that the forest is there for it tomorrow.

The forest industry in many ways is more about growing trees than it is about cutting them. That's what the silviculture aspect of this industry is about. Certification talks about the whole process of cradle to grave to cradle again. That's an important part for people to understand. The industry itself, through its certification process, which in fact is the process that helps it deal with the international market campaigns and is what's allowed it to be so successful….

The industry is not interested in moving backwards, and neither are we. That's why this is probably the right time for this new Forest and Range Practices Act to be introduced. I think it takes us to the next level. Now that we have professionals who…. I think we recognize in a better way, as a general public, the work that these professionals do. It allows them now to start to use their skills in a lot more productive way that makes this industry a lot more efficient and a lot more productive. Certainly it helps it start to get in the direction of being globally competitive.

I'd agree with the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I think at the end she says…. One of her comments was that all is bad and everything is good. We would get into some rhetoric. Truthfully, everything is not all bad. By the same token, this doesn't make everything good either. But this is a very good start. This is the

start we need to make as a government, to start to help to put this industry back where it needs to be, as the driver of this province. Each and every one of us in this room recognizes the contribution it makes. We recognize the need. This is the first step in a number that this government is going to initiate, which will start to put this industry on a solid footing and, with that, help to start to battle some of the problems that rural communities have been facing in this province, especially the forest-dependent ones, around depopulation and things that David Baxter talks about. I think a lot of us in this House have talked over the last year about how we, in fact, start to change that tide and reverse the trend.

This Forest and Range Practices Act goes a long way to doing that. It is a good beginning. It's a beginning that I'm certainly proud to be part of. I think everyone in this House can be proud of the fact that this minister has taken the time. He's taken the time to listen to the public. He's taken the time to listen to first nations. He's taken the time to listen to communities. He had the courage to let that committee — whose members, for the most part, we've been listening to today — do its work. I think that speaks volumes for what we're actually trying to achieve here.

Any industry that has more policemen than salesmen is always going to have a problem — unless, of course, you're the Solicitor General. That is something this industry has had for way too many years. I think this is a good start. I think it's a good start for the province. It's something that I'm certainly proud to be part of. I congratulate the minister for bringing this act forward, and I'm certainly pleased to be able to support it here today.

R. Hawes: Like my colleagues before me, I stand to support this piece of legislation that really has been a long, long time coming. I guess I'd like to start by asking: why do we need a new code? As the speakers before us have said, we have an industry that's been strangled for half a decade anyway under the crippling weight of bureaucracy and red tape and has not had any relief.

As part of the new-era commitment, in fact, we ran saying we were going to revamp the code and make it results-based. The minister, when he began the process, put together the committee that travelled the province. I just want to talk a little bit, for a moment, about that committee and other committees that have travelled the province.

It's a little depressing, as a member of the House, when you serve on one of these types of committees and you read in the newspapers how we as MLAs are flitting around the province in the lap of luxury, flying on these wonderful airplanes and staying in high-class hotels with first-class meals. Really, having served on one of those committees, although not this one, I can tell you that's so far from the truth. I would like my constituents to know what life is really like when you travel the province on one of these committees. I know all of my fellow members here that have been out touring the province will feel exactly the same way as I do.

You get on one of these old propeller planes, small and cramped. You're flying through all kinds of weather often very late at night after you've sat for a whole day in a committee hearing, listening to dozens and dozens and dozens of presentations, eating meals on the run and staying in motels that are often a long way from being…. Never mind five stars; they don't have any stars. You're a long way from your family. It's really not very glamorous, nor is it a very fun period of time, but it is informative.

This committee, like the others before it, did travel the province. It came with a draft document to put in front of the industry and those who are interested. The committee was told in spades that no one liked what was put in front of them. Yet that was the purpose: to get input.

What I found really discouraging were the news reports that slagged our minister for taking so long to put this code together. Often when you read the newspapers, they talk about how this is a government that's not open, that we're not consultative. This process was so consultative and so open that it really is unprecedented. Certainly over the last decade there has not been a process like this.

I'd like to commend both the minister for taking the time that he took and for listening as closely as he listened to everyone that gave their input and the committee members for their patience. I know the only time that they had a good time in this entire tour was when they did come to my community in Mission, where I know they did stay in pretty much a first-class hotel because that's all we have there.

R. Hawes: Very close. Just down the block from the Bellevue Hotel, which is another wonderful establishment.

The news coverage didn't do justice either to the minister or to the committee. I know that the people both in my riding and around the province and, certainly, the people involved in forestry in this province have a whole different view, particularly now that this code is out.

Let's just talk for one minute. The previous speakers have, so I'm not going to dwell on that a lot. What the new code does, of course, is unburden an industry. It takes off that horrible yoke it's been wearing that's costing jobs and money. In fact, a previous Forests minister from that previous government that put this together once stood with a stack of papers and said, "This represents what this code is," and he stood with a chainsaw, saying he was going to take a chainsaw to

those regulations. The unfortunate part was that he had no gas in the chainsaw. It never started, and the regulation never disappeared.

Now we have found a way to get rid of this regulation. It has taken a huge amount of input from a huge number of people, but it is going to put an industry back on its feet in terms of doing what it should be doing. Instead of filling out papers and having reports bounce back and forth, we will have an industry that's back to work in our forests, which have been devastated over the past decade. I'm going to talk about that in a second.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings, as she went through her presentation earlier today, asked a lot of questions, and she went into a lot of detail. She went into this act section by section. You know, Mr. Speaker, she knows better. She just wanted to get the rhetoric up a bit. The time for asking those detailed questions and going through section by section is at committee stage in this bill. I know that when she puts those questions forward, if she dares, the minister will have answers to all of the questions she has. She did say, though, at the end of her little speech today — a fairly long speech — that for a change…. Well, she didn't quite put it that way. She said she hoped that people wouldn't stand up here now and say that she was fearmongering or that she was seeing conspiracies, because, "This time," she said, "I have made reasoned comments." I think what she was saying was that this time, as opposed to all those other times when her comments were unreasonable…. I'm quite sure that's what she meant.

What did the NDP, the previous government, do over the last decade to forestry? First, we should know that the last government actually was trying to pander, as they do with so many things, to one segment of the society. The other day we were talking here about the landlord and tenant act, and as one of the members opposite got up to speak, all she could talk about were tenants. She did not once talk about what happens to landlords. When you talk about forestry, what they talk about is the environment, and those who are in the environmental movement really had a lot more to say about how forestry ran for the last decade than those who were actually working within the industry.

I'll give you an example. The other week my seatmate from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and I met with Joe Foy from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Mr. Foy sat and explained to us how every dollar that's invested in parks in this province returns $10 to the province, whereas every dollar put into forestry loses money. I sat listening to this rather strange logic, and it dawned on me that this stuff was listened to quite heavily by the previous government and helped set policy, which is why we have a forest industry that has far less employment now than it did a decade ago.

The Forest Practices Code cost a billion dollars. That's not our figure. That was from a former Forests minister and a member of the old spin-doctoring team of the NDP — I think they called it Cupcakes — Mr. Gunton, who did say a billion dollars. Because of the Forest Practices Code that the last government put in place, 8,000 jobs were lost, and it didn't do anything.

Who in forestry could forget the jobs accord — the jobs accord that was to create over 20,000 jobs and lost thousands of jobs? But not to worry, because we had Forest Renewal led by that wonderful businessman Roger Stanyer, with his longtime tenure with one of the trade unions in this province, who ran Forest Renewal. Billions of dollars were spent trying to replace jobs for forest workers who could no longer work in an industry they had devastated. I know there were people who got money to take things like saxophone lessons, so they could become professional saxophone players. They never got those jobs. The money was just basically thrown out the window, shovelled off the back of the truck, and it was money that was robbed from the forest industry, which was already in a lot of trouble.

I know that this time what we've done is this. Rather than listening to a select group, a special interest group, there was input from all sectors. The environmental community came and spoke to the MLA committee that travelled the province. When they were in Mission, I listened for quite some period of time to some of the presentations. There were people from the environmental community; there were people from the forestry communities. There were woodlot owners. There was a broad segment, a cross-section.

This bill brings all of that input together, I think, in a very, very balanced way. That's why I have no trouble supporting it, and I know that none of my colleagues are going to have any difficulty. In fact, this is a great, great news day for British Columbia.

All of us as MLAs had input into this bill. We spent quite a bit of time sitting around in kind of hot rooms debating and talking about this well before it got to this stage. I know that the minister had a huge amount of patience listening to us, and I'm quite proud of him for doing that.

As I listen to the member for Vancouver-Hastings and often listen to her seatmate, who think that forest workers and, more particularly, those who own forest companies are out there to rape and pillage in the forests — they're out to destroy everything; they're just the greedy, money-grubbing capitalists out to destroy the world — I have to ask myself: who are forest workers? I know a whole lot of people in my community — and they're friends of mine — who work in the forest industry as loggers, as professional foresters or as executives in forest companies. These are all people who have homes in our community, who live there with their families, who care about their kids and their grandchildren and who care about our province moving ahead in the way that all of us want it to move ahead.

These are just ordinary folks. These are not environmental terrorists. They're not people who are out to destroy anything. What they often are, though, are members of the IWA. That union understands what

went on in forestry for the last decade and how their lives were made miserable through a regime that didn't really care about them. This government does care about forest workers, and we care about forestry. We are looking at the resource sector returning in this province to its rightful place. Forestry should be the number one industry in this province.

Mining should be right up there with it. Mining has been completely devastated, as you would know, Mr. Speaker. It has been completely devastated in this province. It's gone from being an industry that has over $500 million in investment in research and development to something, I think, less than $20 million a year over the last decade, because of the policies of that government and their silly way of listening only to special interests.

I live in Mission. I'm not a forester. I've never worked in forestry, but we have a tree farm in Mission, the Mission tree farm. It's been there for over 40 years. I was the mayor of that community for quite some period of time, and as such I spent a lot of time with the professional forester that runs the Mission tree farm, Mr. Kim Allan. Now, the Mission tree farm is owned by the people of Mission. We, the people of Mission, are an owner. We're not the capitalists or the greedy, money-hungry people that would go out and destroy the forests.

In fact, the Mission tree farm has a proud history of forestry and of reforestation. We do exactly what the name says; we farm trees. Just like wheat farmers or anything else, we grow a crop, we cut the crop, and we replant it so that it will grow again. The money from that tree farm has gone to support things like building a new library in our community. It has gone to arts and cultural pursuits in our community. In fact, millions of dollars over the last decade have gone from that tree farm back into our community to support all kinds of projects that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

When the Forest Practices Code came into being, the Mission tree farm quickly found itself, like all others in this province, bound with that huge burden of red tape and administration. In fact, our manager in Mission at one time told me he figured it was about $40,000 a year in extra cost to the Mission tree farm, which is very small in comparison to the forest industry. Most other forestry companies are much larger. It has just over 40,000 metres a year, which is not big, and it had $40,000 in costs because of the code just in that small operation.

That's shameful. That's $40,000 a year that went absolutely nowhere, which should have gone into social infrastructure in a community. I think those members opposite ought to hang their heads in shame for doing that to communities like Mission. That's the kind of burden and the kind of yoke they put around people's necks. They didn't want to listen, and I think it's absolutely dreadful. I know that Mr. Allan on the Mission tree farm today is looking at this as liberation day.

Last summer I was asked to go with the minister to have a look at the BCIT woodlot on Blue Mountain in Maple Ridge. In fact, that's the woodlot that Joe Foy would like to see shut down and turned into a park. The BCIT woodlot is an on-the-ground practising, working forest run by BCIT, where their students can get some practical experience. Mr. Foy thinks that's a bad thing.

I was really impressed, and I know the minister was really impressed, as we walked through that woodlot and looked at the type of forestry they're conducting. We looked at the kind of growth they have there and the kind of program they're running, and it is just a marvellous example of what some of these small woodlots do.

On Blue Mountain there are other woodlots that are similar and that are in private hands. They are also just wonderful examples of environmental stewardship. Earlier today I listened to the member for North Island talk about the burden that woodlots carry even though sometimes they have very, very small cut allocations — in the hundreds of metres perhaps. These are small, small pieces of land that they're basically farming, and these people have exactly the same bureaucratic burden placed on them as some of the largest forest companies do.

That really is shameful and ridiculous. It's so hard to imagine why any government would look at the people that run these woodlots, excellent examples of environmental stewardship, and not listen. I think it's because they never went out in the field and looked at what was going on. They had no conception of what's going on. The truth is, as people sit here in Victoria, often there can be a disconnect. I can see how that could happen — a disconnect between a member sitting here and his community.

In this government I don't believe that's happening. The biggest part of it is that in previous governments (a) there would not have been the consultative process, and (b) the MLAs — or as the members opposite like to call us, the backbenchers — do not have input into legislation. They saw it for the first time when it entered the House. That's what used to happen. Because of that, those who worked as ministers were completely disconnected and had no conception of what was going on in the field.

At the grass-roots level where forestry really happens, where the forest worker is hit the hardest, they had no idea. I'm guessing that some of the members of that previous government had an idea of what was going on. They were probably fairly close to the people that were being hurt the most, but they had absolutely no opportunity to put any input whatsoever in, because it was a very closed form of government that now, under our Premier, has been completely opened up. All of us as MLAs have input into legislation as it enters the House through GCCs, through access to the ministers, through MLA committees that are working hard throughout the province.

It's a great way to open up the government and allow the folks out there to have input into their government through their MLAs, and it's working. This is

a marvellous example of how it's working. This piece of legislation will pole-vault us miles ahead in forestry. There is more to come, a lot more to come. I know that the minister is working diligently with his staff to make that happen.

This province has been brought to its knees economically over the last decade. We've seen us move from first to last in most of the major economic indicators. That's because we had a government that didn't understand what makes an economy work and didn't understand the people that make up this province. They see an enemy in everybody that's out there trying to make a profit. They see that anyone in free enterprise is an enemy and should really be working for the government. The only way to bring people to heel is to first cripple them economically and then to bring them into the government fold as employees. That was what seemed to be the strategy of the last decade.

What I'm proud of is that this government sees it totally differently. We know that the way to put the province back on the road to economic recovery is to allow private enterprise to do what it does best to provide jobs, to create investment, to bring investment into the province and to invite money from other countries and other parts of the world so that that money can multiply itself here and create even more jobs.

That's the only way to have a healthy economy. It can't happen under the previous system. It can't happen when you build a regime that's so hidebound with regulation. I think the minister said earlier today that there were 10,000 regulations around the old Forest Practices Code. That's meant to do one thing. That's meant to create employment for a lot of people that are running around looking at those regulations. Instead of that, what should be happening is that we should be having people working in the forest industry. That's what this bill is going to do. I'm reminded of a time a couple years ago at the Mission tree farm when, again, Mr. Allan told me he had submitted a plan for a small cut that the tree farm was about to make. It was on a fairly steep hillside. They were going to do some selective clearing. He said part of the code called for him to have an archaeological survey. It was a steep hillside, and there was absolutely no way that there could have been any previous activity or habitation on that hillside. When he submitted the plan, whoever was checking the plan said right away, "You're right. There can't ever have been anything there. I agree with you totally, but the code says that it's got to be there," so the whole thing was rejected. They had to go back and invest money in an archaeological survey for absolutely no purpose. Of course, it confirmed what everyone already knew.

That's an example, a small example, of the kind of bureaucratic foolishness that was in the previous code, which I'm very happy to say is going to be removed. As you move to a results-based system, we remove a lot of that bureaucratic morass, and we allow people to do what they do best.

The best part — a number of our members have talked about this already — is we do recognize that balance has to take place. There are people out there who would try to cut a corner. If the penalties are so severe that they can't cut corners and if we have people, instead of looking at paper, actually in the field looking at forestry, we're able to make sure and to check that what's being done is done in accordance with what should be and that environmental standards are being met. Where they're not, if there is negligence or willful disobedience to the new code, there are penalties that are extremely severe.

I'm quite confident, Mr. Speaker, that's going to keep all of the forest industry on the straight and narrow — those operators who wouldn't be the straight shooters and the environmental stewards that I know probably 99 percent of those operating within forestry are. I don't know anybody in forestry — and I do know a lot of people involved in forestry — who's out there to strip the land or to make a quick buck and destroy the piece of ground that they have to farm. I like to call it farming, no matter how big or small the operation, because that's what we do here in this province. We farm trees to cut them down and grow them again — something that the previous government clearly didn't understand, still doesn't understand.

As we move forward in this, I'll be very interested in the committee stage of this bill to see if the member for Vancouver-Hastings still comes with the same kinds of questions that she had earlier today. It's a lot easier to raise questions in this form of debate where no one can give answers, where they're rhetorical questions. It's a lot easier to do that than to ask real questions where somebody is going to get up, who has knowledge, and give you the answers. I'm really looking forward to the kinds of questions that the member for Vancouver-Hastings will have to ask.

I know most of us that have spent some time with the minister have no questions. Our questions have been answered, which is another thing that so often I hear the members opposite talk about. They're urging us to get on our feet. Why aren't we on our feet questioning? Well, it's because we agree with the legislation that's being put forward. There's no real reason for us to begin asking a whole series of questions when we already know the answers and when we have had a good hand in drafting the legislation or putting it together before it came into the House.

I can't fault those members opposite for saying those things, because they've never seen a system like that before. They've never allowed members in the governments that they've been in, whether they were on the back bench or as ministers…. It just hasn't happened. There hasn't been that kind of input. In fact, in looking back at the history of the previous government, I know why they couldn't have cut the regulation. I don't think they had a minister that was in the desk long enough to get around to even reading the regulation, the way that the ministers used to spin through in the previous government. It seemed like almost every second week there was a new minister. I know in talking to some of the staff that was here at that time, I've

heard them say that sometimes they barely had time to meet the minister before he was whisked away and a new one was there. So policy often wasn't coming from any kind of leadership in that last government. It was actually coming from the special interest groups, and it was unbalanced.

Just in closing, I want to again commend the minister for seeking balance here. I want to commend the members of the committee that travelled the province. I'm hearing from my colleague down the way from Prince George North. He's reminding me of how, as he travelled the province…. I think he's mentioning he didn't really enjoy his time on the road either.

R. Hawes: Oh, he loved it, but he didn't go to Prince George North, I don't think.

I know there is one more speaker here that does want to go, so lastly, I am going to say thank you to the minister for putting forward a great bill, for helping us back on the road to recovery. With that, I'll listen closely to my colleague down the road.

D. MacKay: It's about time. When you stop and think about that phrase, "It's about time," it's rather interesting. It's about time for what? When you stop and think about why we're here tonight, it's about time. It's about what happened in the past. That's why I wanted to start off by saying that it's about time.

Before I speak to the act, let me take this House and those that are outside listening to the debate going on in this House this evening….. I want to take you on a trip into the past to tell you why we're here tonight. The past I refer to is the last decade under the previous NDP government. What did that government do to the resource extraction workers and communities and to the province as they put their spin on what is best for this province?

I'm going to take you back to the mining industry for a moment. Mining in the early nineties used to spend about $250 million a year on exploration. In the year 2001 mining spent roughly $20 million on exploration. Over that same ten-year period, almost half the workers involved in the mining industry lost their jobs. They lost good-paying jobs. Families had to relocate, and we lost revenue to the province because those jobs disappeared. Why did those people lose their jobs under that previous administration? Well, it was because of the taxes that were imposed and the overly prescriptive regulations that were imposed on the mining industry.

Now that I've taken you back very quickly and dealt with the mining industry, we should stop and look for a moment at what the mining industry has done since there has been a change in government. Early in our mandate we gave tax breaks to all the workers in this province. We eliminated the corporate capital tax. We made the corporate income tax competitive with other jurisdictions. Is the mining industry listening? Did they pay attention to what we did in the early days of our mandate? Well, yes, they did. This year it is expected that the mining industry will spend $60 million on exploration.

Noranda, one of the largest mining companies in this country, left British Columbia under the previous administration. They are now back. Since this new government was elected, they are back in the province. I just have to look at the area I represent, the area of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, which was rich in resource exploration and mining. The community and that part of the province was devastated when the mining industry left, but they're coming back. They're staking claims. They're drilling. They're looking for new minerals.

Now let me talk about the issue that is before the House this evening, and that is forestry and specifically Bill 74. Let me take you on a tour of the last ten years under the previous government. Let me take you back to 1996, when then Premier Glen Clark introduced the jobs and timber accord.

He promised to create 39,800 new jobs. Well, not one single job was created. Again, in 1996, just prior to the election, the same man, Glen Clark, promised to create 21,000 new jobs. I don't think it's necessary that I remind this House they did not create a single job in the forest industry. Rather, thousands of jobs were lost. Approximately 8,500 jobs, to be specific, were lost in the forest industry.

In 1998 NDP Forests minister Dave Zirnhelt tried to defend the massive amount of red tape in the code by claiming the paperwork associated had been cut in half, and it was now 35 feet, down from 70 feet. The cost of that Forest Practices Code was approximately a billion dollars. That wasn't a billion dollars to government; that was a billion dollars to the private sector people who were trying to make a living from the forest industry — a billion dollars that they passed on to their customers.

Can you imagine? We talk about the 35 feet of paper regulation that Mr. Zirnhelt spoke about, and look at the new Bill 74 today. It's probably less than half an inch thick. That is moving in the right direction by getting rid of red tape and regulation. Can you imagine this comment, also coming from the Forests minister Dave Zirnhelt in 1997? He stated: "If you define business climate in terms of huge profits, those days are gone." Can you imagine the vote of confidence that instilled in the private sector people who wanted to invest in this province?

After the NDP introduced their Forest Practices Code in 1996, the forest industry lost money for three consecutive years. In 1996 they lost $290 million. In 1997 they lost $137 million, and in 1998 they lost $1.4 billion. I guess the NDP felt that private sector investors could continue, like the government they were in

charge of, spending beyond their means and passing that debt on to the next generation. This is not my understanding of reality. This is the NDP's understanding of reality. This is not my understanding of being accountable to the people of this province.

Let me speak for a moment on just how important the forest industry is, was and will once again be to this province. More than 14 percent of the total workforce is employed directly or indirectly by the forest industry. That equates to approximately 270,000 people in British Columbia. Forestry contributes approximately $17 billion to the province's GDP. The forest sector supports more B.C. communities outside the GVRD than all other business sectors combined.

In 31 local areas containing 270 communities, forest activity accounts for more than 20 percent of the area's income. Forestry activity in British Columbia generates approximately $4 billion for provincial revenues. That $4 billion in revenues goes to pay for the social programs that we all want and all need and all cry for when they're not there, such as health care and education. In metro Vancouver alone, forestry accounts for over 120,000 direct and indirect jobs.

What did the previous government do to create an atmosphere that would create an interest in the private sector to want to invest in the province? I'm not really sure what they did. They promised new jobs, but none were created. They increased taxes and regulation. That is not a great track record. That track record was reflected in the results of the spring election held on May 16, 2001, when the NDP retained two of their seats, and the B.C. Liberal Party got 77 of the seats. What did we say to the people of the province that made them look at us seriously? What brought about that result for British Columbia?

I'm going to read a couple of those promises we all made to the people of this province. One of them was that we would adopt a scientifically based, balanced and principled approach to environmental management that ensured sustainability, accountability and responsibility. We said that part of our vision was to create a thriving private sector economy that created high-paying job opportunities. We also told the people of this province that we would reduce the red tape and regulatory burden on B.C. business by one-third within our first three years.

Speaking on the bill tonight, we also said that we would reform the NDP's job-killing Forest Practices Code to create a results-based code that eliminates needless costs while maintaining environmental standards. That's what we said to the voters, and they gave us overwhelming support. They asked us to carry out those commitments and others that we made during the lead-up to the election.

As I said before, we went from 35 feet of paper down to Bill 74, which is approximately half an inch thick. Does that mean that we threw the baby out with the bathwater? Did we get rid of environmental concerns that were in the previous code? Of course we did not. No, but what we did in the new act was make it results-based. It is no longer necessary that government get involved in every aspect of paperwork before a tree gets cut down. I have to ask you: what is the value of a tree? Well, really, it's worthless. It's worthless unless a job is created by the removal of that tree from the forest, and the tree is processed, and the processed tree is purchased for a specific purpose.

Cost is important. If it costs more to process a tree than you can sell it for, then no one's going to cut it down. Remember, the cost of the Forest Practices Code was $1 billion. This was directly passed on to the private sector. No wonder the forest sector had significant losses after it was introduced. Was this cost justified? If we look at the results of the inspections carried out by the forest practices review panel, who did follow-up inspections to ensure compliance was there, it was revealed that 97 percent of the inspections — 47,000 inspections were conducted — were in compliance. The forest companies, loggers and contractors all knew what was required of them 97 percent of the time, and they were in compliance. The 3 percent that were found not to be in compliance were dealt with. Our new legislation acknowledges this.

How did we get to where we are today? This was not done in a back room. This was done through consultation with people in the forest industry. General people out there also had a chance for input into this. Our new legislation also acknowledges that there are those who do not and will not comply with any legislation. Bill 74 is quite severe in the penalties for non-compliance, and I think you've heard other members speak on it tonight as well. There are fines up to a million dollars and/or jail, so it's a pretty severe penalty for non-compliance with this new act, which is half an inch thick.

One of the things we should do is acknowledge the work that went into this new legislation for all the right reasons. We are now going to allow registered professional foresters and other professional people who work in the forest industry to make decisions without having to consult the government at every stage. Can you actually imagine people who are fully qualified being allowed to make decisions that they're qualified to make?

You can relate that, Mr. Speaker, if the NDP had been in for one more term…. I can equate this to driving an automobile. You get into a car after you've obtained a driver's licence. It would be like having a government person sitting beside you when you're driving your car down the highway, telling you that you have to stop at a stop sign — well, you can read the stop sign — telling you that you can't pass on a double solid line, when you can see the double solid line. These are things that we all know when we get our driver's licence. Had we gone down that road with the NDP for another term, we might very well have been in that position, given the imposition they placed on the forest industry.

The woodlot owners are going to benefit greatly from this. I had the opportunity in Smithers to spend time at a woodlot with an owner. Mark Adamson from

Smithers invited me to his small woodlot. I spent a very enjoyable Sunday afternoon with him and his family. The stewardship of that land is what struck me. He is not going to cut a tree off that land in his lifetime. The trees are a foot high. He will not see any benefit from that woodlot. His family will, but he won't. I have to tell you, it was enjoyable to go out there and watch that man tend to the trees. I even had a chance to cut some branches off trees, and I got sawdust in my hair.

That was a very enjoyable afternoon for me — to spend the time in that woodlot and see the care those woodlot owners put into their land base that they're looking after, knowing that they're not going to see any benefit from it for a long time.

I want you to know that when Bill 74 comes up for a vote, I will be speaking in support of Bill 74 in this House.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY