Hansard -- Thursday, March 27, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 6 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tabling Documents		5679
	Ombudsman report No. 42, Code of Administrative Justice 2003 Ombudsman report No. 23, The Right to Know: A Complaint about the Greater Victoria Public Library Meeting Room Policy

Second Reading of Bills		5679
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail K. Krueger

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following reports: ombudsman report No. 42, Code of Administrative Justice 2003; ombudsman report No. 23, The Right to Know: A Complaint about the Greater Victoria Public Library Meeting Room Policy.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is with a great deal of pride, I think I can say, that we…. I move second reading of Bill 28. [Applause.] I must confess that did not appear as an applause line in my text, but I am, of course, grateful.

I will say this off the top. On a legislative initiative of the magnitude unveiled yesterday, I would be less than forthright if I didn't acknowledge that I was interested in tracking some of the commentary, that I was interested in looking at what some of the reaction beyond that which took place at the announcement itself yesterday. I won't spend much time on that, because I think it is more important that we discuss the substance of the bill itself, what has given rise to its birth, the motivation behind it and what we hope to accomplish.

I was struck by this comment that appeared this morning in the Alberni Valley Times. Port Alberni is a community steeped in history associated with forestry; a community that is built around the forest sector; a community that I think it is fair to say plays host to some of the most talented, innovative forestry workers in the world. I was struck by the comment that appeared in that paper this morning, the day after an announcement of that magnitude was made which touched on virtually every feature of forest management policy in British Columbia.

This is what the mayor of that community said, Mayor Ken McRae. I have come to know Mayor McRae over the last couple of years. I know him to be a passionate spokesperson for Port Alberni, for the interests of his community, for the people that work not just in forestry but particularly in forestry in Port Alberni. I have also had occasion to engage in debates with him on various topics. I think it is fair to say that Mayor McRae is not someone you would categorize as anyone's lackey or ideologically predisposed to align himself with any singular partisan interest. This is what Mayor Ken McRae is quoted as saying in this morning's Alberni Valley Times: "If B.C. 's forest industry is going to become more competitive in order to survive, then so will Port Alberni. If we have a competition, we can always beat out anyone."

He's right, you know. He's right on both fronts. If our industry is going to survive, it is going to have to become more competitive. But the second part of that statement is also true. Port Alberni can take on anyone, anytime, anywhere as it relates to forestry and beat them. Broadly speaking, that lies at the heart of what we are doing in trying to chart a positive future for our forest industry.

I've spent the better part of my time in this job travelling around the province over the last year and a half, two years, meeting with British Columbians, meeting with people who are involved in the forest sector. I have, as I said yesterday, learned that they have some expectations, and I think they're fair expectations. They, first of all, believe that forestry in this province needs to be practised in a way that is sound from an environmental point of view. Happily, I think we meet that test, and as we move forward, we will continue to meet that test. They have another expectation. They believe that forestry needs to be practised in British Columbia in a way that is sound economically — not just today but in the future — for the sake of their children and their grandchildren so that they, too, will enjoy the benefits of this resource with which we have been blessed in abundance.

As I travelled around this province from community to community, from public forum to public forum, I put one question to every gathering: how many of you believe that we are meeting that objective of a sound economic forest sector today? No one thought that was the case. No one believed we would rebuild. No one believed that our forest industry was meeting that test that involves providing stability and jobs to British Columbians in the present circumstances. Virtually without exception they said to me: "What we need is a bold strategy to revitalize B.C.'s number one industry, because that's what it's going to take to provide the opportunities, the jobs and the stability our heartland communities want and deserve, particularly when you consider that they are situated in areas surrounded by this resource."

As I engaged in that discussion…. I want to say right off the bat that I am obliged to countless members of this assembly who have worked over the last year and a half to help facilitate that discussion taking place and who have themselves, based on their own experiences — oftentimes experiences that extend far beyond their political involvements but are based on their own involvement in the forest sector — provided suggestions, provided input and more importantly, I suppose, facilitated the input from any number of other stake-

holders and participants in this industry. There is a recognition that in order to accomplish our objective, we must abandon the status quo, we must recognize that change is necessary, and we must recognize that that change will be difficult.

Change on the scale that we are proposing as part of Bill 28 and subsequent legislation is on a grand scale and is difficult. Bill 28 follows in the footsteps of some other changes we have made, changes to introduce a forest investment act that focuses on sustainable forest management that actually dedicates money in a sustainable way on a long-term basis to international marketing. Surely, we have learned about the dangers associated with placing all of our trade eggs in one basket. Surely, we have now learned the value that goes with diversifying our markets. That's all part of the forest investment act. This continues a process that involved the changes we have made, the introduction of a results-based forest practices code that actually gets people out of their office, from behind a mountain of paperwork, out onto the field and tracking the results we expect our practitioners on the land base to achieve.

But this is change that goes far beyond either of those two pieces. The measures we've introduced in Bill 28 are designed to open up new opportunities. Though we have heard those terms used time and time again — and this is a theme I will return to — for the first time, government is acquiring the tools to actually facilitate the opening up of those new opportunities for first nations, for communities, for loggers, for processors, for woodlot owners. I want to talk about that today during the course of this debate. In subsequent legislation we'll talk about creating a regulatory regime that actually makes a degree of common sense and responds to the changes that have taken place around the world in the markets we try to ship our products into and to the fundamental changes that have taken place over the last half-century in British Columbia. The only thing that hasn't changed, the only thing that hasn't kept up with those changed circumstances around the world, is the policies that are passed in this Legislature, and now that's going to change, Mr. Speaker.

The reason…. Well, let me ask this rhetorically, at least: why? Why subject this industry, this sector of our economy, to the kind of legislative overhaul that Bill 28 represents, the trauma that is usually part and parcel of that kind of change? Well, let's ask ourselves where we are. Where is this industry today? How have we performed? If the industry is healthy, if people are working, if people are earning paycheques, if there is stability and if there is certainty, why tamper with the formula? Why, we could ask ourselves, would we try to inflict any degree of change or uncertainly that goes with change?

The answer to that question is pretty obvious. This has not been a healthy industry of late. It differs depending on where you go in the province. That is certainly the case. The situation on the coast is far different from the situation in the interior, but overall, when you take British Columbia's forest sector and apply any conventional form of measurement, you come away shaking your head, and it's not with enthusiasm. It's with disappointment. Over the last half-dozen years, 13,000 jobs have been lost in forestry. That's a lot of jobs — well-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs, community-supporting jobs. They are gone.

The revenue that the people who own this resource…. That's British Columbians. They own the resource. All government does is sell access to it on their behalf. The amount of money they have realized from those sales has dropped over the last six or seven years by over $600 million a year. That's not make-believe money. That's the money we use to provide health care services and education services. If your child went to school this morning, some of the money being used to pay that teacher in your child's classroom comes from forestry. That's how important this industry remains in British Columbia. Almost 25 percent of our GDP is tied one way or another to forestry, and the trend lines have been very, very bad.

People ask me: "Why is government concerned about the profitability of industry? Let business worry about that." Well, that is their concern, but when industry as a whole is uncompetitive and when industry as a whole is not realizing healthy returns, do you know what happens? That industry as a whole falls into decline because people don't want to reinvest. People from outside the province don't want to invest. We end up with a situation where you have antiquated and outdated processing facilities. Your competitiveness begins to suffer. You no longer have state-of-the-art equipment. Over time, your ability to compete on a worldwide basis is compromised. That, particularly on the coast, is what we have seen happen.

People say to me: "Never mind. That's industry's problem — their profitability. Let them worry about it." Well, industry can look after themselves. Our job as government is to create a climate in which an efficient, competitive operator can actually succeed. That, over the last ten years, has slowly but surely been slipping away. Why is that? Well, I've alluded to some of the reasons, I think. First of all, dramatic change. People have heard me say this before. I wasn't involved in forestry 15 or 20 years ago, but I asked people who were if they would have thought that in the year 2003 we would have been competing for market share around the world with wood products from Latvia. Latvia? Russia hasn't even ramped up in a meaningful way, and yet today that's where our competition is coming from. Northern Europe. Scandinavia. There's a whole other competitive world in the southern hemisphere. Yes, there are some opportunities out there for us in new markets like China, Taiwan, Korea and India, but they're not waiting for British Columbia. They're looking to see who can fulfil their needs at the most competitive price. If we ignore that reality, we do so at our peril.

Our placement in the world compared to 50 years ago, when I think it was fair to say we enjoyed a healthy, competitive advantage…. For much of the world we were the suppliers of choice. That's changed. That has changed in a dramatic way, but our domestic policies have not changed. Our domestic policies that, I will say this, made eminent sense through the 1950s and early 1960s were designed to accomplish specific purposes. The architects of those policies had specific things in mind that needed to be achieved. I think, broadly speaking, they achieved those objectives.

I don't think for a moment that the architects of those policies thought they would remain the answer in perpetuity. Yet that, by and large, is what has taken place. Everything has changed. The way we manage our land base within British Columbia has changed. The expectations of first nations have changed. Environmental regulation within British Columbia has changed. Our competitive position on a worldwide basis has changed. The only things that haven't changed are the policies we use to manage the land base on behalf of British Columbians who own that asset. Now that is about to change.

Bill 28 begins that process. It does represent confirmation of my belief that the time has come to act, and to act decisively. In so doing we have to recognize the interrelationship, the interlocking nature of the interests involved, the policies involved, the issues involved and how changing one necessarily impacts another. When you talk about changing a pricing system, that has implications for your tenure system. When you talk about greater involvement for first nations, that has implications on the other side of the equation. You can't do this piecemeal. If you try, and perhaps that is the record of at least the last half dozen years — piecemeal tinkering — what you end up with is a bigger mess than when you started.

British Columbians said to me and, I think, to many of my colleagues in this House: "It's time government acted decisively, laid out a blueprint and showed us how we get to where we all know we want to go, which is the re-establishment of a competitive industry." At the end of the day, that is the most secure guarantee of stability for our heartland communities. Every other strategy has a degree of artificiality attached to it.

I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the House, that what we are talking about in Bill 28 is the creation of new opportunities and actually moving on to get the most value from the timber we harvest in British Columbia here within British Columbia. Also, it's about setting a fair price so the people who own this resource, the people that own these trees — British Columbians, four million of them — actually have the confidence to know they are getting a fair return when government purports to sell access to that resource on their behalf.

Well, I've been saying for some time now and repeated it yesterday that I am not the first Forests minister — nor, I suspect, are we the first government — that has talked about creating opportunities. Yet here we are in 2003 facing this situation. It is something that previous governments and previous ministers have not wanted to talk about particularly openly, because it represents the single largest constraint to actually getting on with creating those new opportunities. That is the simple, inarguable fact that 75 percent of our annual allowable cut, or AAC, a number of decades ago was essentially allocated into long-term tenures.

Now, that was done for a particular purpose. It was done to achieve some objectives. I'm not going to second-guess the architects of that policy because, as I said, in large measure, those objectives were achieved. But that is what we are left with today: a situation in which 75 percent of the annual allowable cut is allocated to those long-term renewable tenures.

It has certainly reduced the opportunity that new entrants have to get involved in forestry. It has, I think, provided a bias in favour of the production of certain types of commodities. When only 25 percent of your fibre base is available on an open market, that necessarily has served to limit the opportunities for new entrepreneurs, for workers, for communities and for first nations.

If you're going to change that, if you're going to change that basic fact, you have to have the courage to deal with a pretty tough issue. You have to acknowledge that what you are necessarily obligated to do is create a mechanism by which there can be a redistribution of some of that AAC. We've recognized that. It's a tough decision.

It is challenging to say to people who have licensed rights that we think it's time to reconfigure those entitlements and that is going to impact upon you and the business plans you have developed for your organization. Bill 28 does that. It redistributes 20 percent of the renewable tenures in British Columbia. Now, what does that mean? It's 8.3 million cubic metres of wood. That's a lot of wood. It's a lot of wood.

It translates into a lot of opportunity. The opportunity I believe it translates into is for first nations, for communities, for woodlot owners. For 50 percent of that volume, it translates into opportunities for people who have been crying out for greater access to fibre on the open market through an auction system on a competitive basis that will undoubtedly favour efficient operators, large or small, who can bid competitively for that wood. That is, again, an indisputable fact.

When you say to people that your access to this fibre will be competitive, it will favour the people who are more competitive. That, I would suggest, is how it should be.

As we had these discussions — and I did with my colleagues from this House around the province — it became clear that, particularly among smaller operators, there was a degree of anxiety. It went something like this, particularly for those who recognized the value of this enhanced opportunity. It said: "You know, at some point, if you reduce my allotment of fibre to too small a portion, there's a scale-of-efficiency argu-

ment. There's an argument that says I can't any longer maintain the equipment I need because the volumes I'm harvesting are so small. Or my licence becomes so small that it becomes problematic for me in a way that it doesn't become problematic for a much larger-scale operator or larger licensee."

That argument, as far as I'm concerned, has a degree of truth to it. What the government is absolutely committed to doing is ensuring that this program — this program for reform and change — is based upon the principles of fairness and equity and is implemented within those principles of fairness and equity. That's why we have built into Bill 28, and into this enabling legislation, a threshold — a threshold that ensures each licensee will keep their first 200,000 cubic metres of wood. The redistribution kicks in after that, so those smaller operators aren't impacted unfairly. I have to tell you that, as you might expect, has gone a long way to instilling in our forest industry the realization that what the government is doing is built around the principles of fairness, reasonableness and transparency.

There's another feature to this that some people don't want the government to talk about, and they don't want me to talk about. I'm a bit puzzled by it, but I think it reveals a lot about the attitude of the people who are making this pitch. They say, "How dare the government compensate licensees for redistributing a portion of their licence rights" — 20 percent in this case. It's interesting, you know, because depending on who you're talking about, the response is very different. If it's a large corporation, the sympathy is pretty limited. If it's a large corporation owned by a family, the attitude's slightly different. The fact of the matter is this: we want people to come to British Columbia. We want them to invest here. We want them to do so confident in the knowledge that the government will treat them fairly and equitably as well.

That's why there's compensation here — because licensees large and small, impacted by this legislation, have made investments. They have built roads; they have built bridges. They deserve to be compensated for those costs if they are precluded from utilizing that infrastructure to harvest areas that are going to be redistributed elsewhere.

There is value associated with the harvesting rights that are going to be reallocated and redistributed. We've applied the expertise of the Forest Service in calculating what we believe that amount to be. Remarkably — and I have to tell you this is something that I am particularly proud of; I'm proud of the government; I'm proud of my colleagues with whom we discussed this — we have allocated that money in advance to signal loud and clear that though we understand that governments are entitled to exercise their political prerogatives in manifesting the kind of change contained here, in so doing there are fiscal consequences.

I can tell you this. I still deal with files, as the Minister of Forests in 2003, dealing with compensation claims from past governments where the decision was made to exercise the political prerogative because — you know what? — it was a really popular thing to do, to create that park. It was, but no one thought and no one cared about the fiscal consequence flowing from that very positive and popular political announcement. Now we clean up the mess, because no one wanted to talk about the money that the law says those licensees are entitled to. Well, we're doing this in a significantly different way because there are entitlements, and we're going to address them. We've built that into this bill, and that is because it is the right thing to do.

What does this bill allow us to do? What does Bill 28…? When it has been implemented, when we have had the discussions, when we have had the negotiations, what does it allow us to do? Someone told me, "Well, it allows you to take back harvesting rights," and my immediate reply is: "I don't want the harvesting rights for the government." They don't do us any good sitting here in Victoria. They're designed to be used. They're designed to be out there in the hands of entrepreneurs who can put that fibre to work and put British Columbians to work. That's what it's all about.

In no case is that truer than when we talk about first nations who for years, if not decades, have lived — many of them — in bands located in areas of British Columbia surrounded by forest and have watched that forest activity take place around them and said: "Why aren't we involved?" Well, now they're going to be. That process has already begun.

I can tell you without, again, any hesitation and with no embarrassment that I was proud last night when I happened to come across a particular television newscast and saw a member of the Huu-ay-aht first nation, Tom Happynook, stand before a camera on a day when other first nations leaders were saying less than flattering things about this program and say: "Yes, there are details that need to be worked out, but by God, the first nation communities that I am a member of have accomplished far more in two years under this B.C. Liberal government than they have under all previous governments combined." It's because we were serious. We were serious when we said that as important as negotiating long-term comprehensive treaties is, in the meantime we can't ask people to put their lives on hold.

Let us turn our minds collectively — first nation, non–first nation — to the task of creating those economic opportunities. For so many first nations, that means forestry. It's logical. That's where they live. I'm not the first Forests minister to say that either, but it is a hollow promise if the Crown does not possess the currency necessary to give effect to those pledges. This government is acquiring that currency.

This government has already had the courage in recognizing our need to consult and accommodate and in recognizing our desire to follow through on the specific promises we made around developing economic development opportunities. We have already taken a step that no previous government was prepared to take and said that we will allocate specific dollars for reve-

nue sharing — a hundred million bucks over the next three years. We know that it's not just a matter of providing people with a timber licence. It's a tough business. It's a bloody tough business right now. It will take resources to develop that expertise and to expand those operations that may already exist.

This House last year developed for the government another tool: Bill 41, an amendment to the Forest Act that actually lets us get on with and expedite the process of awarding tenure opportunities to first nations. It's an important instrument but one of limited use if you're missing something, and we were missing something. We were missing the trees; 98 percent of the fibre in this province is allocated. So it doesn't amount to much when the Minister of Forests says to a first nation, "We want to develop some tenure opportunities with you," and the first nation says: "Okay, where's it going to come from?"

Actually, they generally don't say: "Where is it going to come from?" They say: "Okay, you worry about where it's going to come from." We've dealt with that. We are dealing with that in Bill 28, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you this. When I looked across the faces in the crowd yesterday, when I saw the Cheslatta Carrier nation there and think about the work they have done in developing incredible, incredible entrepreneurial opportunities in partnership with firms like Carrier Lumber and what that has meant in terms of employment — and the member from Prince George knows what I'm talking about because he has been intimately involved in watching and participating in and encouraging that activity taking place — I feel good.

When I look out and see what the Uchucklesaht, the Huu-ay-aht and the Ditidaht have been able to accomplish and what they will be able to accomplish when the Crown is in a position — as it will be after passage of Bill 28 — to give effect to their interests, to more fully develop their involvement in forestry, I know that at the end of the day, it won't just be first nations that benefit. It will be all British Columbians, because there is value associated with the certainty that is going to create. We see it in the partnerships that exist now, and we know it's going to expand in the partnerships of the future. It's a good thing. It's a very good thing.

I think about what communities have said. Mayor Jack Talstra was here yesterday while his member was in Prince George with the member from Prince George performing some work on behalf of the government. The mayor of Terrace was at the announcement, recognizing there are issues here that we need to work through and details that need to be considered. But he, like mayors from across this province, those communities…. I heard and have heard a lot about how people are talking about the impact on communities.

The one remarkable thing I haven't heard is a lot from the communities themselves, except those that say they think we're moving in the right direction. As we embarked upon this process of consultation — and there were meetings in Terrace and meetings in Prince George and Cranbrook and right across this province — mayors attended. Mayors participated, and they said to us all: "We want to have a little more control of our own destiny." By and large, some of the antiquated policies we're going to deal with in the next bill have not achieved that purpose for us.

What about community forest opportunities? What about providing communities with the ability to set some priorities close to home for the resource that surrounds their town? You know what, Mr. Speaker? That makes sense. It makes sense when Jack Talstra says it. It makes sense when Colin Kinsley says it. It made sense when Donna Barnett from 100 Mile House said it. Bill 28 provides us at last with the opportunity to give effect to those recommendations, and that's what we intend to do. That will provide communities with some real additional security.

I spent a lot of time talking to woodlot owners. They're an interesting breed. They are independent. But that is the nature of their business, isn't it? They manage small holdings of fibre. They manage it pretty intensively. They maximize, actually, the cut. They grow the AAC. Imagine that. They actually invest their time, sweat and energy, and their families' time, sweat and energy, money. As a result, they benefit because they grow trees faster. They grow more of them.

I like the woodlot program. I think it should grow. I think it should double. You know what? I'm probably about the ninth Forests minister to say that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The first one to do it — this government, these members — because we have the courage via Bill 28 to recognize that all of those pious statements about wanting to expand the woodlot program don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have the courage to find a mechanism by which you acquire the annual allowable cut, the trees necessary to expand that woodlot program.

That is going to signify incredible opportunities. There are just over 800 woodlots in the province now. If we can double the volume, I think we can look at growing the size of woodlots. I think we can look at who qualifies to hold a woodlot. I think we should look at whether or not there should always be a private land component. I think we have to look at how they're awarded.

You know what makes me pleased? As a result of the year and a half we have spent talking to British Columbians, including the woodlot federation, they have signalled fourscore that they want to have that discussion. It is the right thing to do. It is the right direction, and it translates into new opportunities.

Believe me, woodlot owners don't live in Vancouver or Victoria. They live in the heartland communities.

People have questioned the nature by which this bill and this legislative package have come together. I want to talk briefly about a part of this that I think demonstrates clearly the positive process that has given birth to this reform package, Bill 28.

Had we done this a year ago…. First of all, I confess that I would not have known nearly as much about the interrelationship between all of the issues. I confess that. It is bloody complicated. The time that I have had to speak to members and to stakeholders has, I think, altered dramatically the shape of the final product.

I point to one particular issue as demonstrating that greatly. I have, over the course of this year and a half, learned a great deal about something called small-scale salvage and the opportunity it represents for thousands of British Columbians who find ways to earn a living going after fibre that has been left and which others, for whatever reason, have decided is uneconomic for them to harvest.

Although we have challenges within government, in terms of the resources we have to administer various programs…. That's what happens, actually, when revenues to government fall. The two are not divorced. When you're making $600 million less, that impacts on your ability to deliver services. I know there have been previous governments who have had trouble with that concept, but I think most British Columbians sitting at their dining room table understand it.

Over the course of the past year that argument from the small-scale salvage community has been made loud and clear, and it has been made loud and clear from members of this House. The member for Cariboo North is here. He's forgotten more about salvage than I'll probably ever know, but he knows the people that are involved. He knows the import they attach to having the ability to access that fibre. I can say that for the member from Prince George; I can say that for the member for Skeena; I can say that for the member from Vernon.

In fact, I want to talk about the member from Vernon for a moment, because the member from Vernon, as we were putting this package and discussing aspects of this package, said to me: "You know, I have a group, a regional district in north Okanagan, who are concerned about salvage. We have a lot of salvage operators in our area. They're concerned their access to that fibre might be limited. They're prepared to compete for it, but they are concerned about the mechanism by which that competition will take place."

The regional district from north Okanagan came, and a few others. We had a good chat. Mr. Speaker, I think you're somewhat familiar with some of those discussions. And we're responding. We're responding in a way that will allow an organization like the regional district of North Okanagan to actually hold a licence and administer small-scale salvage with the sensitivity and sensibility that can only come with a local, on-the-ground body like the regional district.

There are other possibilities that exist out there. The member for Prince George North is going to chair a committee. It's going to involve those other members, and they are going to liaise with the small-scale salvage community. They're going to make sure we maximize the opportunities for recovering what would otherwise be unrecoverable fibre. That's a good thing. That translates into jobs, and that's a good thing.

When you put fibre out on the market, that translates into new opportunities for everyone. While I believe there is an argument — in fact, we have confirmed our acceptance of the argument — that smaller operators, value-added operators, without renewable tenure will have their 13 percent of the timber sale program reserved for them, it will be on a competitive basis. But there will be, as a result of Bill 28, additional volume, significant additional volumes, out there for those value-added operators to access.

That is the message that I heard loud and clear from those operators. You cannot expect us to invest the money in the infrastructure that you need to develop a value-added opportunity if we don't have the opportunity to access fibre. That's going to change. I think it's a very positive change.

In fact, I began this discussion by pointing out the fact that 75 percent of the tenure is presently tied up in long-term renewable licences. When we have completed this exercise — and it will take a couple of years, flowing out of Bill 28 — that figure will be less than 60. Over time, I think, because of some other features in this legislative package, it will draw closer to 50.

So I am perplexed — I am amazed — that some of the criticism I have heard in the last 24 hours has been from people who are alleging this is going to lead to more concentration of ownership. I can think of any type of criticism that one might get. I heard Vicky Husband, Ms. Husband, a longtime participant in debates, and I have a degree of respect for her analytical powers and her thoughtfulness. I would have expected her criticism to be: "It's timid. It doesn't go far enough." To suggest this is a blueprint that favours the corporate world of concentration is an astounding statement. It is precisely the opposite. It creates opportunities by diversifying the flow of fibre, by providing additional outlets for people to access the fibre they need to go on with running their businesses. I'm sure that debate will take place. That is as it should be, because it is an issue that impacts on everyone.

The last point I want to refer to relates to the specific situation we are facing on the coast. It's a critical situation. Anyone that pretends otherwise will be deluding themselves. There has certainly been a healthy degree of denial over the last ten years on everyone's part, to be blunt. This government had a choice. We could continue with that denial, or we could take some concrete steps to try and deal with it. We opted for the latter. We opted for taking those decisive steps.

If you look at what Dr. Peter Pearse said, if you look at the situation where we have antiquated infrastructure, outdated mills, overcapacity…. I don't like

saying we have overcapacity in the coastal forest sector. It is not a popular thing for a Forests minister to stand up and say: "We've got more mills than we've got wood to supply." It's not exactly the battle cry I like to take into a mill town on Vancouver Island, but I am burdened by one inalienable fact: it's the truth. If we choose to ignore that truth, we will perpetuate a cycle that has gone on and on and on and shows no signs of changing. We have to deal with that.

Dr. Pearse in his diagnosis painted a pretty gloomy picture. He also portrayed a very different scenario — one that, admittedly, he said was dependent on creating the right circumstances. That scenario involved the reinvestment that goes with updating processing facilities and the replacement of old antiquated mills with new leading-edge technology and productive facilities. Eleven to 14 were his estimates. That is where we've got to get to. That surely is the goal we've got to remain focused on and recognize, at the end of the day, that is the best security, the best guarantee for any of our heartland communities — a forest sector that is vibrant, where the flow of fibre is free within British Columbia.

I will say this now as I will undoubtedly say in subsequent debates. We are not removing the restrictions around log exports that are presently in place. Maximizing the value from the fibre — and we'll talk about that more in some of the subsequent legislation — does not alter the fact that there will be impacts in this transition time and in addressing the reality that Dr. Pearse and other non-partisan commentators have laid out.

In this bill we've recognized those costs. We've recognized them by establishing a sum of money, $75 million, for payment into a trust that will be managed and administered by representatives from labour, licensees, logging contractors and government. That's as it should be, because those are the stakeholders that are going to be impacted. We have worked and will continue to work with those people and those agencies who represent workers who are impacted.

I come back to the point I started at. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that if we do nothing, somehow the problems disappear. Thirteen thousand workers have lost their jobs. We have a disproportionately demographically aged workforce. That's why I have said, and the Premier has said categorically, that some of these moneys should be dedicated to pension bridging. We will work with the IWA, with labour on that front, and — no secret — we're going to try and lever some more money out of Ottawa. That process has begun. The IWA, Mr. Haggert, and I have had meetings. I can't say that we've enjoyed much success to this point, but that's no reason to stop trying.

At the end of the day, I began by suggesting that the objectives are shared ones. Ken McRae — I was struck by the statement: "If B.C.'s forest industry is going to become more competitive in order to survive, then so will Port Alberni." Well, that's the right attitude. He's dead-on. We are going to have to become more competitive. That is the nature of the world we live in.

There are two kinds of people and, I suppose, two kinds of governments. There are people and governments who look at that reality and bemoan its fact and think of all kinds of excuses around why that is unfair and around why that presents an insurmountable obstacle. Then there are the Ken McRaes of the world, the mayor of Port Alberni, and governments like the one that I am a member of, who recognize that for a reality. They recognize the dangers of continuing to ignore that reality and say: "Let's get on with rebuilding an industry, providing some hope to our forest-dependent communities and providing the opportunities that the best forest workers, best forest technicians in the world, need to ply their trade and make this province number one again."

J. MacPhail: On Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, I want to begin my remarks by advising viewers — British Columbians — that the bill we're debating today, Bill 28, is but one of three bills, pieces of legislation, that together with a fourth bill anticipated in April comprise the package of reforms to forest tenure and a pricing structure that will have a lasting and profound impact on forest communities across this province for generations.

I note that only so that British Columbians understand the way in which this government is approaching this monumental change. This government is approaching monumental change in a way that divides their points, their direction, into small pieces, rams the small pieces through. At no time has there been the ability for British Columbians to engage in a broad public discussion about what all this change means.

The minister has said this is a seminal change in the way forestry will be conducted in this province, and he's right. He is right. It is substantial change; it is change that we have not seen in decades. Yet the minister puts it forward as if he expects praise for the fact that this change is occurring, and occurring in the way that he is thrusting it forward.

Normally, though, citizens might expect that a public policy change of this magnitude would receive some form of public scrutiny before being finalized, that the public might have a chance to read the legislation — not only read it but comment upon it — that the public might let their MLAs know their views before it was carved into stone. Some British Columbians might even expect that there would be widely publicized hearings on such an important change. Yet none of these is occurring.

Yes, this is important legislation. It will impact on the economic well-being of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians — forest workers and their families, the shop owner who sells shoes to the kids of the woman who works in the mill. This is legislation that will affect tens of thousands of British Columbians and dozens of communities throughout British Columbia.

The importance of this legislation, though, is really much different than what this minister and this government would have us believe. This important legislation is so, because it will precipitate the end to many once-proud rural communities — towns where there were hospitals and schools, towns where people bought houses and planned to raise families. Now the future of those towns is in doubt, greatly in doubt.

The specific piece of the overall package we're debating today, Bill 28…. I can hear the government backbenchers, the government private members, say: "It's simply to do with the compensation of the companies for the planned tenure takeback — oh, and a bit thrown in for workers as well." I'll get to that in a minute, because it's important to put this point in context.

They would be partly right — those government caucus members, those government backbenchers — if they actually had the courage to stand in this House and speak to the bill, but we'll see whether they do. We'll see whether the government caucus members actually have the courage to speak to the bill rather than the rhetoric the government spin doctors are promoting, rather than the shock-and-awe rhetoric that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of this bill.

I expect the government caucus members don't have the courage to do that, to talk about the substance of this legislation, because they know this package will produce pain and suffering in their ridings — not shock and awe, but pain and suffering in their ridings across rural B.C. The only thing this government has done for the people living in those ridings is to carefully craft an American advertising industry cruelty upon them with the term "heartlands" — shock and awe in America, America in British Columbia, using the term "heartlands."

This bill will not only establish the authority for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an extremist agenda for the forest industry, it also gives the Minister of Forests an exemption — a personal exemption — from the much ballyhooed, the much touted, loudly trumpeted, self-righteously promised, arrogantly advertised, maliciously propagated Liberal new-era commitment to balanced budgets and balanced ministry spending.

Welcome to the real new era. This isn't the phony, honeymoon new era. This is the cover-your-butt new era.

Here's what an independent reporter from the Times Colonist said — not an embedded reporter, but an independent reporter; not a fearmongering, special interest…. This is what the reporter found when he tried to scratch the surface in the forestry package. I'm reading from today's Times Colonist:

Let's be clear. This article sets out very clearly, in a very stark way, the minimal effort this government is prepared to go for those thousands of families on the coast and in the interior, and it is perhaps what is unwritten that is most horrifying.

I must say, the minister's somehow claiming that he deserves credit by planning for the long term is really quite shocking in its shallow thinking, when his long-term planning only has the interests of one group at heart and nobody else, when his long-term planning only has the interests of the industry at heart — not the communities, not the workers, not British Columbians and not the taxpayer.

I say to all the Liberal MLAs in this House: come on out of the woodwork. Let's have a real debate. Let's not stand up and just give the little message box, the little spin lines, that all the Liberal MLAs have been given. Let's talk about the substance of what the government is doing. Let's have every Liberal MLA who wishes to speak to this legislation tell us in no uncertain terms what it means for their community — what it means for Campbell River, Comox and Port Alberni; what it means for Bella Coola; what it means for Prince George; what it means for the individual mills in each of their….

J. MacPhail: It is interesting that the Minister of Forests seems to need to interject so much when, in

fact, he's pretty much had about two years to make his case. He still feels the necessity of having to say: "Oh, what we meant to say, what we really meant here was…." After two long years we have the minister coming forward with a whimper, not a bang. He still feels the necessity to consume all of the time with what he meant to say.

I must say that when these Liberal MLAs stand up and talk about what this means for their communities, they should be fully aware that their words will be reported back in their communities. If yesterday's announcement is anything like how the announcement was received in these MLAs' communities back home, they have some distance to go to explain why they are here and why they should remain here as representatives of their communities.

The reception to date in the interior and in the coastal communities doesn't even come to the level of lukewarm. It doesn't even come to the level of moving beyond fear, trepidation and suspicion. Yesterday's American-style message box didn't work. They better actually start to stand up in a real fashion with real substance for their communities. Come out and tell this Legislature what's really going to happen.

This is supposed to be the centrepiece of this Liberal government's legislative agenda. I'm sure the Liberal MLAs have had lots to say behind closed doors, lots to say behind the doors of their caucus rooms. I'm sure that in the protection of that cone of silence that exists in that caucus room, they've had a very thorough and vigorous debate about this. I'm sure there's been lots of toing and froing about this, lots of probing and questioning of the minister. I don't want to in any way intimate that I've heard what's going on in that caucus room, but some sense of that toing and froing has seeped through those doors of silence, those doors of secrecy. There is lots of discussion about the toing and froing, the questioning, the provoking, the fear and the trepidation that has occurred inside that caucus room.

Today, why don't the Liberal MLAs come out and tell us all of your victories? Oh, you protectors of the heartlands. Come out and tell us how you won one for your community in this legislation that will destroy rural communities. Tell us, those of you who are brave enough, which of you were the victors. Then we can figure out the losers. Come out and explain why you think it is appropriate that within the next two days — 48 hours — we will rush through this legislation that will allow a minister of the Liberal government to break the fundamental promise on which you all campaigned so confidently and with such pride just a few short months ago.

Tell us why the openness and transparency and involvement of your communities has to be set aside so that you can rush through this monumental change. Tell us why it is necessary that legislation that will, by the minister's own account, revolutionize the industry upon which our economy relies has to be done with all of you standing up going: "Aye aye. I'm happy to have this shoved down the community's throat that I represent, in 48 hours." I can hardly wait to hear the explanations of why this needs to be done.

It's not like the minister hasn't been at it for awhile. It's not like he didn't make a promise 20 months ago — 18 months ago, 16 months ago, 14, 12, six months ago — that all of this would be done. But here we are today, and in 48 hours this government is going to deliver on a promise — in the most secretive rushing to the madness — at the expense of the very communities that they claim to care so much about.

I'd like to take a moment to put this forestry package into context — this initiative that the minister is calling the most profound change in 50 years. This government entered into the softwood lumber negotiation, oh so many months ago, with a plan. "I have a plan," said the Minister of Forests many months ago. This government laid out to the American negotiators a plan that included a tenure takeback, reform to the encumbrances placed on tenures such as appurtenances, cut controls, mill closure restrictions, raw log exports and pricing reforms, which pretty much mirrors what they brought into this House now.

I think it was December 2001 — 15 months ago, 16 months ago — that the Minister of Forests had a news conference and was in the thick of negotiations on softwood lumber, taking a lead…. A personal lead the Minister of Forests was taking in the softwood lumber negotiations. With great fanfare, he stood and revealed the package of reforms that he hoped would move to a conclusion of the softwood lumber negotiations. Well, you'd pretty much need a magnifying glass of the most gigantic proportions to determine the differences between that package and what the minister is ramming through today. It's almost identical. What he tabled in December of 2001 is almost identical to what we're ramming through today. However, the bad news for this government and the Liberal MLAs is that it didn't satisfy the Americans then, and it hasn't satisfied them now. In fact, I do wonder if the British Columbia government is going to get any credit at the negotiating table for this most recent try at getting it right. I wonder if they haven't given up a lot of leverage at the negotiating table as a result of making these changes now.

Recent Ipsos-Reid polling, taken just a couple of weeks ago, gave the provincial government a failing grade for its efforts to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. Now we see the government's trump card being played, and there's no indication that it has had any impact — no evidence that the Americans are ready to cut a deal. Why? Because there's nothing new. They didn't get it right in December of 2001, and their attempt at retabling the exact same proposal hasn't fooled anybody, and it certainly hasn't fooled the Americans. The same poll, by the way, showed that more British Columbians believed the anticipated changes were going to be worse for rural forestry-dependent communities. It will be interesting to see how all those MLAs that are going to get up and trumpet this change as being good for their communities

will be going exactly against the opinions of their own constituents — exactly against.

But of course, that's never stopped this group of MLAs before. B.C. Rail shutting down the passenger service that virtually every single community along the passenger rail service disagreed with…. That didn't stop the MLAs from standing up and thanking their government for going against the interests of their constituents, so I expect those who are brave enough to stand up and actually…. Actually, it doesn't take a lot of bravery to just repeat the spin of this government, but if any of those who are brave enough to actually do a legitimate analysis of what this legislation means for their communities, they will have to admit that their own communities don't want these changes and are fearful of them because it will hurt them.

The same Ipsos-Reid poll, by the way, showed that more British Columbians believed the anticipated changes were going to be worse, as I've said, for their forest-dependent communities, and I think we will see, through the course of debate on this bill and the other bills that make up this package, that those community fears are well-founded.

Let me just read here what the Americans have said yesterday and today. If any Liberal MLA somehow thinks that by my pointing out the flaws and the inept negotiations conducted by this government around softwood lumber, I indeed have anything other than the interests of British Columbia at heart, they will be sorely wrong. But in a set of negotiations there are two sides that have to conclude the matter. There are two sides, and I am unwilling to bury my head in the sand and ignore the American response. Having been through softwood lumber negotiations myself and successfully resolved them as a government, I know what it means to negotiate. Unlike other sets of negotiations this government enters into where they run into roadblocks and just bring down their heavy hand of legislation, they can't do that to the Americans in this particular situation. So it is important what the Americans think about this latest foray by the Minister of Forests.

Of course, I think maybe the Americans see through one of the premises that this government is trying to spin. This Liberal government is trying to convince the Americans that there will be almost 45 percent of timber now on the open market. But perhaps the Americans actually see through what it is that is behind this government reaching its 45 percent level and why it really isn't any different than the last proposal this government put on the table for the Americans, except for the fact that the Minister of Forests is hiding this time what the consequences are of the proposal.

How does 20 percent takeback turn into 45 percent? How does 20 percent takeback of the timber going onto the open market turn into 45 percent of timber going on the open market?

Well, here's how it is. Here's exactly how it is, and this consequence existed in the proposal by the Minister of Forests in December of 2001, and it exists in this proposal. There will be mill closures as a result of these forest policy changes announced yesterday. There will be mill closures that the forest industry, the owners of the tenure attached to those mills, will now be putting on the open market.

That's the good news the government announced yesterday. Their 20 percent takeback is going to turn into 45 percent on the open market because of the mill closures, and the tenure attached to those mill closures will also be going on the open market. Twenty percent becomes 45 percent because no longer will there be jobs in British Columbia in the communities at the heart of that standing timber, and the extra logs that will be available because of mill closures will also go on the open market.

Isn't that great news for British Columbia? Isn't that wonderful news? Mill closures. Mill closures, loss of jobs, loss of community base and closing down of rural communities is the way this government gets its numbers reached. That's how this government gets to its numbers — close mills, throw people out of work and disturb the permanent base of rural communities.

Wow, isn't that wonderful? No wonder rural communities are fearful of this government's actions. And of course, that's why the Americans say.…

J. MacPhail: That's why the Americans say there's nothing in this announcement that would provide a changed-circumstance review.

Now, the minister didn't actually come clean and say that's how his 20 percent takeback turns into 45 percent of logs on the open market, because he was smart enough this time to understand how stupid it was last time to admit that to the Americans. But he did admit it to the Americans in December of 2001. They absorbed it, and they know that the terms he revealed to them privately in 2001 are the same terms encompassed in this announcement.

I hope the Liberal MLAs of communities on the coast and in the rural areas will have the intestinal fortitude to get up and name the mills that will be closed as a result of this announcement and tell their communities what they're going to do to represent those workers — the drugstore owner who relies on those workers having a decent income — and what they're going to do for them as those mills are shut down.

There are, in fact, alternatives this government could have considered, but didn't, as a means of resolving the softwood lumber dispute. Workers from both Canada and the United States brought forward a proposal that would have provided a more measured and thoughtful environment to negotiate a resolution. Workers actually got together in a collaborative way on both sides of the border to put forward a workable solution to the softwood lumber dispute. Workers put forward a proposal that was more measured, more thoughtful, and had a more inclusive set of terms to negotiate that resolution. It included a vision where Canada and the U.S. would act together to expand new markets for North American wood product exports. Instead, this government has chosen to rush headlong into a giveaway of this Crown jewel — that Crown jewel being the vast majority of tenure.

Why do I call it a giveaway? Here's why. British Columbians place value, not just one value but many values, on our forests. British Columbians see our forests as a natural heritage to be protected and preserved for the present and also for the future for future generations. They also see the forests as the province's main source of economic opportunity, employment, income and revenue. This package brought forward by the Minister of Forests devalues that Crown jewel significantly. This package is a ripping up of the social contract entered into decades ago when forest corporations were first given perpetual tenures in their forests.

You know, there are members of this Liberal caucus who now call themselves Liberals but were members of a different party about 15 years ago. I must say, I am so disappointed at those members who were of a different party 15 to 20 years ago, who actually understood better than this government the importance of that social contract. Where have their voices been inside this caucus?

There have been Forests ministers in the eighties who understood what the social contract meant. In fact, there have been government caucus members who sat amongst cabinet in the government of the eighties and understood better what that social contract meant. It is a sorry day that they did not listen to those voices.

I am actually taken aback at how this government caucus is so cowed by its leadership that they are not allowed to have experience guide them in matters that are of most importance to this province. That is not to say this government caucus couldn't learn from the past and understand from that experience how change needs to occur. But to determine in their dictatorial way that a social contract must be ripped up and thrown out for their own now corporate interests is a very, very sad day.

British Columbians see that the tearing up of that social contract will hurt forest workers, companies — not all the companies this government loves, but companies will be hurt by this. Communities will be hurt by it.

The social contract came about because forest workers, companies, communities and the government agreed that our forests would be sustainably managed for the long-term benefit of British Columbians. It was a long-term vision. It was a long-term vision that took a lot of hard work and some pain to work out, but it was a long-term vision that included everybody who should benefit from the Crown jewel.

In exchange for their investment, support for resource-based workers, support for community development and the generated revenues to the Crown that supported the hospitals and the schools in the community, the forest companies were given long-term tenures and favourable taxation and regulatory environments, and the tenures were never open competition. That was the social contract.

Now the new reality under the Liberal government means that the tenures as we have known them will no longer be an essential feature of forestry in B.C. The companies will no longer be required to commit harvested timber to local sawmills or any other particular use, but that doesn't mean that others will be able to compete for the timber harvested when the companies who hold the timber walk away from those traditional commitments. Nope.

Under this Liberal policy, the companies are to be left with the exclusive right to harvest from tenures even though the underlying rationale for the exclusive tenures will no longer apply. The companies who hold the tenures, of course, will profit handsomely by this — exclusive access to vast tracks of British Columbia timber with nary a responsibility, nary a single responsibility back to the community.

J. MacPhail: Oh, there will be some takeback of tenure — a very modest takeback of tenure. I'm happy to have the government stand up and challenge me on this. Stand up and challenge me on this.

J. MacPhail: There will be a modest takeback of tenure — a very, very modest takeback — but that tenure hasn't been taken back in an effort to compensate the Crown or the communities that have been affected by this tearing up of the social contract. We're not going to see a lot of new community forests popping up around the province as a result of this. Even more outrageous, the companies whose tenure is modestly being taken back will be compensated richly for this — modest takeback, rich compensation.

This bill outlines that the government is prepared to compensate the companies with $200 million of taxpayer money. We understand that if $200 million doesn't do it in fair compensation — fair has taken on a new meaning under this government like we couldn't possibly imagine — and if fair compensation requires more than $200 million, we understand this govern-

There's the deal — a deal the forest industry can't refuse, I'm sure. It was cooked up in the boardrooms, and it was cooked up by the primary contributors to this Liberal election machine. In the period from 1996 to 2001, as the Liberals were stocking up for their 2001 campaign, the forest sector gave over $3 million to this Liberal government — $3.1 million into the coffers of this Liberal government.

Canadian Forest Products: $255,793. Weldwood: $251,811. West Fraser: $204,290. International Forest Products: $201,686 donated to the Liberal coffers. Macmillan Bloedel, then to become Weyerhaeuser: $197,767. Weyerhaeuser, when it became Weyerhaeuser, gave another $188,236. TimberWest: $126,000. Riverside: $113,890. Skeena Cellulose: $71,750.

Boy, that's working well, isn't it — this government's treatment of Skeena Cellulose. Hundreds of thousands of cubic metres given away to Skeena Cellulose to export raw logs, and the mill still isn't open. Not one single worker from Skeena Cellulose is back at work. I can hardly wait for the member for Skeena to stand up and say how good their government has treated the people of Prince Rupert. I can hardly wait for him to defend the 55 percent unemployment of his community because of this government.

Lignum, Leslie J. Kerr Ltd.: $39,050. A total of a $3.1 million donation from the forest sector into the coffers of the Liberal government.

Let's look at the deal again now that we know that. Let's look at what that bought for the forest companies. Government removes all of the conditions that originally were tied to the exclusive rights to cut trees on Crown land, including processing that wood in the community, the resulting jobs that occurred and the social infrastructure that was developed. There's now more money for the forest companies directly into their pockets. They don't have to share it with anybody. Government protects the forest companies from any competition on a vast majority of the exclusive tenures that those companies get to keep — more money for forest companies. Government takes back a small amount of tenure for which the companies no longer had any significant social investment responsibilities — not as compensation to the province for the ripped up social contract. No, not for that. No, the government actually then gives the companies $200 million for that takeback — more money for the forest companies.

That's not a bad investment for the forest companies. "Give $3 million to the Liberal coffers, and just within months you get $200 million back." Whoa, what a return on investment. What a return on this investment — unbelievable. Not bad for the shareholders. Not bad for the guy making $500,000 (U.S.) sitting in the boardroom in Portland.

Now, let's look at what the government is going to do for the workers that the Times Colonist reporter has told us will be hurt. The bill provides for a one-time expenditure of $75 million for a transition fund for those who might be impacted by those changes. That fund will be divided, we are told, into a $47 million piece for IWA workers both on the ground and in the mills, a $23 million component for contractors and — get this — a $5 million hold for administration. Whew. Administration? Hmm, what friends of the government will get that money, I wonder.

We have an acknowledgment that this will be hard on workers and communities, but what we don't have is any commitment to adequate compensation — no adequate compensation for the workers or the communities. Companies invest $3 million in this government, and they get $200 million back. Workers and communities invest their lives — their commitment to the communities, the commitment to the social fabric of this province — and what do they get back? Mere nickels on that investment.

Just yesterday we learned that the ministry doesn't deny estimates derived through negotiations with the IWA. It is from the ministry that we obtained this information, so keep the roaring down, all the heckling, all you government backbenchers. It's your own minister that gave us this information. We didn't get this information from the IWA, but the information from the ministry showed that there will be at least $150 million needed to provide the pension bridging to protect the workers that will be affected by this profound change — $150 million for pension bridging to protect the families of the workers. Does the government budget accordingly? No. They gave all the money away to the companies. What we were advised yesterday is that the government adamantly asserts that it is the responsibility of the federal government to pay a third. It's the responsibility of — get this — the industry to pay a third of the cost of the transitional funding.

Once again this government steps back and says: "No, we're not responsible for the well-being of the communities and the workers. Everybody else is. Our only responsibility is looking after our friends, the forest companies." Where in this bill is there any assurance for the workers that the industry can be held to that government fantasy? Where is it in the legislation that says: "Industry, you've got to pay for that pension bridging"?

This package takes away any of the levers that the government might have had to make the industry responsible to the workers and the communities they live in and support. Shame on this government. Shame on the Liberal government members who were sent here to represent those very communities and those very workers. Again, I call on the MLAs who represent the ridings that will be impacted by the decisions we are rushing through this House in these coming hours to get up and defend this bill. Get up and respond to

what the minister has said and to what I have put as the real facts around this legislation.

Just in case they don't have enough motivation — these government caucus members — here's a quote from a Mr. Wade Fisher in the Williams Lake Tribune today, responding to the government's initiatives. "Over the past two decades this local union and other community sectors have worked long and hard to maintain a sustainable balance between social, economic and environmental concerns. Today this government has turned its back on forest communities and forest workers across the province. This won't go unchallenged."

I've had occasion to overhear casual remarks on the naïvety of the IWA in its political dealings during the honeymoon new era. Let's see how they deal with the real new era. Having been on the receiving end myself, I can assure those Liberal MLAs from the coast and the interior that they should take the concerns of workers and the communities they support very seriously. That is the role of these Liberal MLAs. It is their responsibility.

We will be pushing this legislation through. I understand we're going to do committee stage of this bill on Monday — an outrageous rushing of what this government itself claims to be the most important piece of legislation ever. I am left to be asking all of the important questions at that stage, and I intend to do so.

K. Krueger: It's my pleasure to speak in support of this legislation. I am very pleased with the Minister of Forests and this whole package of legislation and forest policy reform. Notwithstanding the urban socialist rhetoric that we were just subjected to, I am a heartlands guy. I've lived in the heartlands all my life in a number of different locations. I represent heartlands people now — two beautiful valleys, the South Thompson and North Thompson Valleys, that are inhabited by heartlands people to whom this legislation is tremendously good news.

What the Leader of the Opposition fails to recognize is that what worked decades ago doesn't work in the year 2003. The status quo proves that. We have the best wood in the world. We have the best technology in the world. We manufacture sawmill machinery that is state-of-the-art and the best in the world. We have one of the most educated workforces that forest industries anywhere in the world employ. With all of that going for us, since the 1997-98 budget year this province has lost $600 million of the revenue we previously enjoyed from this industry, and we've lost thousands of jobs. There are understood reasons for that.

We cannot carry on with the ways of the past without continuing to enjoy those negative results, instead of forestry being the robust contributor to our economy that it was in the past.

Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, I move we adjourn the debate, and I reserve my position to speak this afternoon on this matter.

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