Hansard -- Thursday, October 23, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 7 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7479

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7479
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)
	Hon. C. Clark
	Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 80)
	Hon. G. Plant
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7480
	Surrey business excellence awards
	D. Hayer
	NEPTUNE ocean research project
	S. Orr
	Small business in B.C.
	W. Cobb

Oral Questions		7481
	Loss of income assistance benefits and comments by Liberal MLA
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Hon. G. Hogg
	Payment of wages to forest fire fighters
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Substance abuse in Vancouver
	L. Mayencourt
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Government support for small business
	R. Lee
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Court costs for unsuccessful litigants
	T. Bhullar
	Hon. G. Plant
	Employment in oil and gas industry
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Ministerial Statements		7484
	Payment of wages to forest fire fighters
	Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills		7484
	Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)
	Hon. S. Hagen
	P. Bell
	T. Christensen
	J. MacPhail
	B. Suffredine
	L. Mayencourt
	W. Cobb
	G. Trumper
	R. Visser
	J. Bray
	M. Hunter

Royal Assent to Bills		7504
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35)
	Business Number Act (Bill 36)
	Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)
	Personal Information Protection Act (Bill 38)
	Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41)
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42)
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44)
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48)
	Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49)
	Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53)
	Environmental Management Act (Bill 57)
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)
	Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62)
	Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65)
	Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)
	Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69)
	Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70)
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)
	Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74)
	Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge members of the Wallonian Parliament in Belgium who are with us. They are visiting to learn more about technological development, research and skills training in British Columbia. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Jean Bock, Mrs. Andrée Leonard, Mrs. Nicole Docq, Mrs. Florine Pary-Mille, Mrs. Monique Vlaminck-Moreau, Mr. Pierre Wacquier, Mrs. Josiane Dinoir and Miss Genevieve Berchem. I am pleased they have travelled to British Columbia to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents. Would the House please make them feel welcome this afternoon.

D. MacKay: Today I'm pleased to have two guests in the gallery. But before I introduce these two guests, I would like to remind the caucus of a planned Hungarian goulash dinner scheduled for November 4, made with moose meat from the northern part of this province. I would like to introduce the two women who have prepared this meal for November 4, and I would ask House to join me in thanking my wife and her sister Patricia for the great meal you're going to have on November 4.

J. Wilson: Today is one of those rare occasions when I can get up in the House and welcome some friends from my constituency, and it's indeed a pleasure. Today we have Darwin Netzel and his wife Gail here, and with them is Sherill Clogg. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

P. Bell: I'm not sure whether I have pre-empted my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson or not, but I see that joining us in the gallery today we have our two most capable legislative assistants: the one that has been with us for some two and a half years now and our favourite ranch hand, Steven Puhallo, and our brand-new legislative assistant, Erin Darling. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to tell you about 27 wonderful people who do just a great job in the Cowichan Valley for our seniors. As you know, I've been working very hard over the last little while trying to find as many friends as I can, so I'd like to name all 27. No, I'm sorry, I won't do that. Would you please join with me and welcome these people and thank them for the wonderful job they do in advising seniors through the Cowichan Valley? Thank you all very much.

Hon. C. Clark presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 78, intituled Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, be read a first time now.

Hon. C. Clark: This bill amends the Accountants (Chartered) Act, which established the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia.

The institute is a self-regulating professional body that governs the practice of accounting by its members and students. This bill is the result of extensive consultations with the institute. The bill will enhance consumer protection, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and strengthen public representation in the governance of the chartered accounting profession in British Columbia. It will also broaden access to membership in the institute.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 78 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: Legislation is required to rectify errors in the appointment of the police complaint commissioner.

The current police complaint commissioner was appointed by royal commission rather than by order-in-council. We have prepared enabling legislation that will retroactively appoint the current police complaint commissioner, validate decisions made while he was acting under his flawed appointment, and authorize his compensation and benefits. The office of the legislative counsel, the Ministry of Attorney General and the office of the Speaker are working on a protocol respecting ap-

pointment of officers of the Legislative Assembly so that errors of this nature will be avoided in the future.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 80 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: For nearly 100 years British Columbians have enjoyed the Pacific National Exhibition. The proposed amendments will give the city of Vancouver authority to appoint board members to the PNE board of directors. This will effectively transfer control of the PNE corp. to the city. City-appointed members would comprise the PNE board as of January 1, 2004. We are doing this because we feel that the municipal level of government is actually best suited to manage the decisions of the PNE and, based on consultation with stakeholder groups, to develop the future direction of the PNE.

We are also proposing amendments to the Hastings Park Trust. The Hastings Park Trust was established in 1889, granting Hastings Park to the city as the trustee for "the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public." Since that time, the uses of the lands have evolved, and the trust is now being amended to reflect the current uses of Hastings Park. The amendments confirm the land grant of Hastings Park to the city of Vancouver, expanding the city of Vancouver's ability to authorize future uses and activities at Hastings Park that fit within new parameters specified in the legislation. The powers of the PNE are also expanded to parallel the potential uses of Hastings Park.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to talk about my community of Surrey and the dynamic business scene we have in British Columbia's second-largest city. As we recognize Small Business Week across the province, I would like to describe how vibrant Surrey's business community is and how each year we recognize the best of the best.

Last night I, along with caucus members for Surrey–Green Timbers and Surrey–Panorama Ridge, was part of a business excellence awards ceremony hosted by the Surrey Chamber of Commerce. Each year I make it a point to be there to congratulate all those who win and all those who are named as finalists, because in Surrey we have many entrepreneurs and businesses worthy of such a distinction. Any individual or business that makes it as a finalist is as much a winner as the one who takes the final award.

I would like to take this opportunity to list those outstanding businesses and congratulate the employees that make them so successful. First, the student entrepreneur of the year is a Surrey-Tynehead constituent and student of Fraser Heights Secondary School, Cam McKenzie, of Total Ground Effects Ltd. Business excellence: one to ten employees is RSM Automotive Ltd. Business excellence: 11 to 50 employees is Foundex Explorations Ltd. Business excellence: over 50 employees is Beachcomber Hot Tubs Inc. New entrepreneur of the year is Just One Drop Water Shop, and the business person of the year is Kathleen Casprowitz, who is a partner in Sylvan Learning Centre.

I would ask that all members of the House join me in congratulating all these outstanding business people from my community of Surrey.

S. Orr: Neptune. What does that conjure up in your mind? Perhaps a fish restaurant? Maybe Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Well, let me tell you how important that word has become not only to Victoria but to the rest of the world. NEPTUNE — this amazing project announced last week by our Minister of Advanced Education on behalf of the Premier, where we committed this government to $30.5 million — will advance our position as a world leader in science and technology, where we are going to learn more about our oceans than we have ever learned before.

Over the centuries traditional methods have been used to explore our oceans, mainly using ships and only really offering glimpses of what is going on beneath the waves. The NEPTUNE project will lay a 3,000-kilometre network of power and fibre optic cable on the seabed over the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate. This plate is the smallest of the dozen that make up the planet surface. This network will feature 30 or more sea floor labs, and then information gathered by NEPTUNE will flow instantly via the Internet to shore stations in Victoria and Oregon.

Imagine. We are going to bring the deep ocean and its living form on line to the world, and we are going to finally know what is going on down there. We have

propelled men to outer space. Now we are finally going to unravel millions of years of secrets about the Earth's inner space, and it's happening right here in British Columbia. That is incredible.

W. Cobb: As we all know, this is Small Business Week, and in honour of that, I turn our attention to the sector of our economy that is truly the driving force for employment in British Columbia. People of B.C. are working in all sorts of exciting and fulfilling fields. The vast majority of people work for companies and businesses with fewer than 50 employees. In fact, most are operators of small businesses of fewer than five employees. The numbers paint a clear picture. Small business accounts for almost 90 percent of all businesses in the province, and 83 percent, or about 250,000 businesses, fall within that category of five employees or less.

The momentum has been building since our government took office. After three consecutive years of decline, there was a turnaround. The total number of small businesses grew by 3.1 percent last year. The entrepreneurial spirit has an army of more than 950,000 employees marching us forward. According to the Scotiabank report released just this month, B.C. is leading the nation in small enterprise employment.

I have been part of that movement. In rural B.C. I am surrounded by small business ventures. I ran a small business of my own for 36 years, and my family is now taking up the torch. Also, many, many of our members in the House are small business owner-operators.

At this time, Small Business Week, we celebrate the calculated risk and sacrifices of the entrepreneur. Thanks to the chambers of commerce throughout the province who have promoted and supported small businesses. I encourage customers to think of their local business whenever they make a purchase. Every purchase at a small business is a vote of confidence in our local and provincial economy.

J. MacPhail: This morning the member for Vancouver-Burrard called Vancouver city councillor Jim Green "a poverty pimp who has been advancing his political agenda off the backs of the poor in Vancouver for more than a decade." Jim Green has been raising concerns that as a result of this Liberal government's cuts to income assistance, there will be even more people in need of social housing in Vancouver. Does the minister responsible for social housing agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard that Jim Green is a poverty pimp?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not familiar with the member's comments, so I wouldn't comment on that. I know we are working with the city of Vancouver to ensure that people have housing when they need it and that they have affordable housing, and we look forward to continuing that very productive relationship.

J. MacPhail: Not only did the member for Vancouver-Burrard call Mr. Green a poverty pimp at ten this morning, he repeated those comments entering the Legislature just moments ago. Instead of flying off the handle and calling people names, the member for Vancouver-Burrard could have acted maturely. Actually, he could have responded to Mr. Green's legitimate concerns by telling the public how many people the government expects to lose benefits in order to meet its $168 million budget reduction target.

Let me ask the backup minister to the Minister of Human Resources. Jim Green's concerns about thousands of income recipients being kicked off by this government — do they make him a poverty pimp, according to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, or are Mr. Green's concerns baseless? All the government could do to prove that is to fill in the blank. The FOI has been shown to this minister. The government knows the number. How many people will be kicked off income assistance to cover the $168 million cut?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member for Vancouver-Burrard and this government are all very concerned about those people on income assistance and are providing…. We just happen to have a different perspective in terms of how we can best address that issue. This government believes that employment is the best opportunity, the very best social program, that can exist for people in this province. The member for Vancouver-Burrard was making reference to that issue. That is an approach that means stability for families. It means stability in terms of being able to deal with their self-worth and their way of approaching themselves in the world.

I want to remind this House that we went through this process some time ago with the issue of disabilities and the forms that were filled out, and there were histrionics, calling out and saying there was going to be doom and gloom. The result of that process was not the 19,000 people being removed from the rolls that the opposition said. In fact, there was an increase of 6,600 people receiving those services.

J. MacPhail: No wonder no one wants to actually acknowledge what the member for Vancouver-Burrard said. He called Jim Green, the city councillor, a poverty pimp, and he said Jim Green didn't know what he was

talking about in terms of how many people were going to be kicked off income assistance.

It is clear this government does not want to make that number public. Here's the FOI with that very number blanked out. The government's been hiding it for weeks, choosing instead to call people ridiculous names and, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard now knows, to make themselves look foolish.

Again, to the Minister of Human Resources's backup guy: no more name-calling, no more bluster, no more spin. If he thinks Jim Green is wrong and the member for Vancouver-Burrard is right to call Jim Green a poverty pimp, just fill in the blank. What is the number? Fill in the blank.

Hon. G. Hogg: I want to remind this House that anyone who cannot work — anyone with physical, emotional or intellectual reasons — will be fully protected by this government. This government will take care of them. Time limits are about employable people who won't work or who won't work training.

As I said yesterday in this House…. Let me reiterate what the minister said earlier this week. He has instructed his staff to prepare a report for him regarding the number of clients affected by time limits, and he will receive that by the end of April. I can assure you that the MHR staff are working hard in looking at those numbers and that the minister will have those numbers available in January. Those numbers will reflect a direction and a focus towards stability and ensuring we support the most vulnerable in this province in ways that they need to be supported.

J. Kwan: As the minister responsible for paying the bills on time knows, the people of Barriere and Louis Creek are still waiting for help. As it turns out, so are many of the firefighters who put out the fires and who are still waiting to be paid. That's causing a lot of extra hardship for many firefighters. To the minister responsible for provincial revenues: when can these firefighters expect to be paid?

Hon. G. Collins: As the members opposite know, I would think — and if they don't, I'll be glad to advise them….

Hon. G. Collins: The costs of the forest fire and the task that was undertaken to put out those forest fires were monumental. It was a huge job not just for the firefighters but also for all of those processing the types of invoices that have come in as well. Government is doing everything in its power to ensure that invoices are paid as quickly as possible.

We'll continue to do that. I think people will be able to find some good news on that in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: After the fires were out, the government ran an expensive ad — a campaign featuring a photo of a Seattle firefighter. My guess is that the government paid that bill immediately. It seems the people who actually put out the fires are treated quite differently by this government. No one asked the big ad agencies to be patient. Their bills got paid promptly, but this government is asking the firefighters to be patient.

Again, to the Minister of Provincial Revenue — whose only job is to make sure bills are paid on time — when he gets back to his office, will he get on the phone, call his deputy and make sure the government does the right thing for once and get these firefighters paid immediately?

Hon. G. Collins: Everyone in British Columbia is incredibly thankful for the work that those firefighters did in putting out those fires. Until this very day, every British Columbian was trying to do their best to deal with this issue and to make sure it was done in the most timely fashion possible.

Hon. G. Collins: No, Mr. Speaker, what's outrageous is that that member would sink so low as to raise the issue and pretend somehow that the government of British Columbia isn't doing everything that's possible to pay for those people who put their lives on the line to defend every British Columbian so successfully. That's what's shameful.

If that member is running out of things to raise in question period and she has to sink that low, I'll be glad to volunteer time to help her come up with something that matters to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Trafficking in the abuse of drugs like crystal meth has risen at a very exponential rate in my community, particularly amongst youth and members of the gay community. These drugs cause long-term harm. Some leave these people in a psy-

chotic state — sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for days and sometimes for a lifetime. They often result in violent behaviour as well. Because of this violent behaviour, youth centres and transition houses have had to turn away youth from their centres. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health please tell me…?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order, or we'll terminate question period right now.

L. Mayencourt: Can the minister please explain what the Vancouver coastal health authority is doing to deal with this problem?

Hon. G. Cheema: This is a very serious issue and a growing problem. Methamphetamine is an inexpensive, easy-to-make, extremely dangerous drug that produces violent and self-destructive behaviour and damage to the brain of the person using this drug. Presently there are very low treatment successes for meth addictions.

A methamphetamine response committee was founded in January of this year. It includes reps from Vancouver coastal health, the RCMP, the Vancouver police, the city of Vancouver and the service providers. This committee is focusing its work on three areas: (1) demand reduction, (2) professional education and (3) prevention and treatment. This committee has recently applied for treatment research funding and funding for psychosis and meth-use beds from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of State for Deregulation. This week is national Small Business Week, which recognizes the immense contribution of small and medium businesses to our Canadian economy. In British Columbia, small businesses with fewer than five employees make up the majority of all businesses, and this sector is continuing to grow each year.

Can the minister tell British Columbians what he is doing to create a climate where small businesses can develop and thrive?

Hon. K. Falcon: Under the leadership of our Premier and Finance minister, we introduced some very dramatic changes to the tax system. We had in British Columbia, under the previous NDP government, one of the highest marginal tax rates in North America. A 25 percent personal income tax cut and a cut in the business tax rate to make sure we were competitive with Alberta have changed the environment in British Columbia.

When you add in the fact that we've reduced the red tape and regulatory burden by almost 17 percent, which means eliminating almost 80,000 unnecessary regulations in British Columbia; when you include the changes we made to the Small Business Venture Capital Act, which will help create more pools of investment that will be invested in the heartlands of British Columbia; when you consider the changes the Securities Commission has made to the new capital-raising exemption rule, which has raised over a billion dollars in new capital for small business in the last 12 months alone — all of this is creating the kind of climate that is creating one of the highest levels of confidence for small business in the country.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently there's been a contemplation of raising the tariff to approximately 50 percent of real costs to unsuccessful parties in the superior courts in this province. My question to the Attorney General is: will this not have a chilling effect on potential litigants and thereby deny them their day in court?

Hon. G. Plant: There is a review underway being conducted by the Supreme Court Rules Committee, the chair of which is a justice of the Supreme Court and the membership of which includes members of the judiciary and members of the bar. They're posing the question whether it's time to have a look at the tariff, which has not been updated in British Columbia since about 1990.

We have a longstanding tradition in British Columbia that parties who do not succeed in civil litigation are expected to bear some of the costs associated with that. One of the longstanding principles behind that is to discourage frivolous litigation and encourage settlement. Those are good principles.

The review is underway. I believe that the committee is still receiving submissions. If the member has his own views on that, I encourage him to make them known. I look forward to the work of the committee. I know they, too, are trying to strike the balance that is implied in the member's question, and I'm confident they will do that in a way that ensures the interests of all litigants are protected.

B. Lekstrom: Today my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. B.C.'s booming oil and gas industry continues to be driven by the Peace River region, providing opportunities that could translate into thousands of well-paying jobs for residents of British Columbia.

However, a recent study by the North Peace economic development commission suggests that despite the tremendous growth in this sector, many of the opportunities are going to people who live in Alberta. To the Minister of Energy and Mines: what steps can be taken to ensure that local employment opportunities

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, there are two parts to this question, and I'll clarify it. The report that was just recently released by the North Peace economic development commission is a report that looks backwards. It was actually commissioned by the last government. The NDP, in the dying days of their election, commissioned this report because they had ignored the northeast. They had totally ignored the northeast as far as jobs go, and all they wanted to do was drag money out of the northeast down south here.

What we did immediately when we went into office — the second part of the question — was reduce taxes to encourage those industries that had left British Columbia to come back. This year we have invested $70 million in road infrastructure in northeastern B.C. That is an all-time high.

We looked at royalty changes that would encourage year-round drilling so that people could actually work year-round and live in the northeast. That's actually happening, as we speak, in the short 24 or 26 months that we've been in office. We've had a service sector strategy that we're implementing, which we worked with people in the northeast to develop so that we can actually get those sectors in the northeast working in the oil and gas industry.

It is all good news. Our Northern Lights College has had donations of millions of dollars for training. This is all good news for people in the northeast. If you go up and ask the business people in northeast B.C. or the people that are working in those businesses, they are extremely happy with what's going on.

Hon. G. Collins: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague raised questions about the payment of receipts to forest fire fighters. I want to put on the record the response the government has taken to date. The worst fire season on record in British Columbia was 2003, and it's stretching resources of various ministries to and beyond the limit. At the peak, there were 7,600 firefighters and personnel involved in fighting the fires. The ten-year average is 1,850.

This year a large portion of those firefighters were contractors. Government usually takes between 30 and 60 days to process payments to all contractors. On August 25 the ministries of Forests and Finance put in place a system for immediate payment of all protection branch and fire site invoices. Four additional staff have been hired to ensure that invoices received in Ministry of Forests headquarters are being processed for payment within two days. More staff will be brought in as the volume of work increases so invoices can continue to be processed in a timely fashion.

Administrative staff have also been deployed directly to fire centres. They've left their positions elsewhere in government and have attended directly to the fire centres to assist with the work and ensure that the flow of invoices continues to headquarters. As well, three additional staff have been added to deal specifically with the massive increase in supplier codes and to ensure that new supplier codes are entered first thing every morning.

The office of the comptroller general is dealing with the Ministry of Forests on a priority basis, before those of other ministries. The Ministry of Finance is processing electronic fund transfer requests on a priority basis, as well, for the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Management Services has extended the working hours for the operation of the corporate accounting system.

Government and the people who work in the public sector are doing everything possible to ensure that this occurs in a timely and efficient fashion. I would urge any forest fire fighters who have not received timely payment to contact the Ministry of Forests immediately, and they'll be put on a priority basis.

Hon. G. Hogg: In the gallery today is a former member of this House, a former representative of the Surrey–White Rock area, a former chairperson of the Surrey–White Rock Chamber of Commerce and of the Cloverdale and District Chamber of Commerce, and a tireless community worker. Would the House please welcome Bill Reid.

Hon. S. Hagen: It is my pleasure to move the bill now be read for a second time and to introduce the bill that proposes amendments to the Land Act.

British Columbia's economy depends on a vibrant and healthy resource development sector, which in turn depends on secure and certain access to Crown lands for its success. This government has made a commitment to revitalize and rationalize the way in which strategic land and resource use decisions get made, decisions that balance the needs of economic growth with those of environmental protection. This

will provide more clarity respecting the rules that apply to resource developers and increased investment on the Crown-owned resources in the public interest.

These commitments will be achieved in part through the introduction of an addition to the Land Act. These amendments will provide the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish designations on specific areas of Crown land. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will also be able to set management objectives for the resources located in that designated area. By establishing this decision-making authority at the highest levels of government, these amendments will ensure that resource management decisions are balanced and reflect both economic development and environmental values.

In the near term, we expect to use this authority to implement a key government priority: the designation of a working forest. I want to be clear that these amendments do not in themselves create the working forest. The amendment simply enables the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council to make designations such as the working forest.

I also want to dispel any concerns that the legislation will lead to the privatization of our forests. To the contrary, this legislation ensures that B.C.'s forests can be designated by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and thus remain a public resource to be managed in perpetuity for this generation and future generations. The actual designation of the working forest will occur through a cabinet order, and this is where the concerns of the public and stakeholders can and will be addressed. We have listened to the substance of the public input on the working forest, and I'm confident that all of the key concerns can be put to rest as we move forward.

In addition to the working forest, the amendments to the Land Act will enable streamlined implementation of other resource management planning decisions, including outcomes of land use planning tables that to date have not had the benefit of dedicated legislative tools intended to make the product of these broad-based processes a reality.

The ability to establish a designation could also be used to support economic development through designating land that is suitable for particular economic purposes. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will not be able to make a designation that conflicts with other designations under existing legislation, such as a park. This will ensure that consistency with current legislated land uses is maintained when designations are made.

The legislation will provide government officials with clear direction respecting what uses are permitted within a designation. This will be done by establishing clear objectives for designations via a cabinet order. For example, an order under this legislation can be used to provide resource targets for any number of resource values, including tourism, mineral development, conservation, timber availability, etc. Objectives established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for each designation can be made to apply to any government official responsible for approving licences, permits or other authorizations.

Another provision in the proposed amendments will enable the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to establish objectives for the purposes of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The legislation essentially continues authorities currently contained in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, as this latter act is phased out over the coming years. Many objectives established under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act will be continued as legal objectives under the Land Act.

The amendments are also closely harmonized with the Forest and Range Practices Act. It has been made clear that objectives established under the Land Act will be the most powerful among the various types of forestry objectives established by government. This is entirely appropriate, since the objectives established under this legislation will reflect the carefully balanced land use direction arising from existing and new land use plans.

The government is committed to maintaining a role for the public in the developing of these forest and range objectives, and prior to any of these objectives being established, there will be an opportunity for the public to review and comment on them. This will enable the public to ensure that the objectives reflect their aspirations for the management of public forest resources. We will also continue to meet our commitments to consult with first nations and, where appropriate, to accommodate potential impacts of land use objectives on their asserted rights and title.

These amendments will enable this government to efficiently implement clear and balanced decisions respecting how and where Crown resources are to be developed. This will improve the climate of certainty that the resource industry requires and will ensure that public and first nation values for the management of Crown resources continue to be respected.

P. Bell: I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill 46 today. The Minister of Energy and Mines has coined a phrase for our government, and that phrase is: "More good news." This is, for me, some of the best news this provincial government has developed in the past two and a half years, and I would like to take some time today to relay exactly why I believe this is significant in terms of the progress of, particularly, rural British Columbia.

Let's make no mistake. Rural British Columbia drives the economy of British Columbia. Without rural British Columbia and the resources that we provide to urban British Columbia, urban British Columbia would be just a shadow of what it is today. The wonderful, tall concrete buildings that are in the riding of my colleague the member for Vancouver-Burrard would not exist if it were not for the forest industry, the mining industry and the energy industry. As much as he would perhaps like to believe it was self-sustaining, I think he would find that's not the case.

In fact, some of the early logging in our province was done in the lower mainland, and one of the largest clearcuts, I believe, is Vancouver, if I'm not mistaken. The working landscape and the concepts that relate to the working landscape are absolutely critical to the long-term wealth of our province, so I'd like to comment on what this legislation is really about.

This legislation is about doing things like improving access to the land base. This legislation is about working with first nations, which is absolutely critical in this new era. This legislation is, more importantly, about really ensuring that we have tenure security over the land base, and that is the one thing I consistently hear in my part of the world that's very important from a business investment perspective.

When you talk about business, I'll tell you what this legislation is about. It's about actually enhancing B.C.'s business climate. It's about improving B.C.'s business climate. It's about actually creating opportunities for investment. More than anything else, this legislation is actually about opening up new markets to the world. When the world looks at the practices this province participates in, especially in terms of land use planning, I think it will see we are truly the most environmentally friendly province or component of the world — period. So this legislation is about all kinds of really positive things.

I'll tell you what this legislation is not about, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not about selling off our land. In fact, this legislation absolutely dictates that you cannot sell off Crown land in the future, not on a large basis for forest resources. Some will have you believe that's not the case. Some would tell you this is actually about divesting Crown land, and that clearly is not the case.

The working forest land base and the working landscape are absolutely critical to our long-term sustainable future. When I think about our province and when you look at a map of our province, what do you see? You see all these nice green areas on the map, which represent the approximately 13 percent of our province that has been dedicated to parks, and I'm proud of that.

I'm okay with the fact that we have the largest amount of parkland of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. I think that's something that we all should be proud of in this House. I think that's something that was admirable, but I think we have to go a step further than that. Once you designate a large portion — and 13 percent is a big chunk — of land to parks, you also need to think about where you're going to earn your income from. In order to have those parks, you have to have a sustaining income that will allow you to provide the services to people that want to utilize those facilities.

That's what the working landscape really does. During the election of May 2001, I can tell you that this was one of the things I referred to on an ongoing basis as one of the main reasons why I believe people in the communities of Mackenzie, Bear Lake, McLeod Lake, Tsay Keh, Kwadacha, Prince George, Nukko Lake and Ness Lake and all the little communities in my riding that rely so heavily on the landscape should vote for the B.C. Liberal Party and, specifically, for me. I believe this one piece of legislation would offer the security that is necessary in order for our economy to move forward on an ongoing basis.

This legislation is about providing that certainty. It's about providing that security of tenure which is so critical for us to move forward as a society. There are some direct benefits we're seeing already as a result of this.

I have six sawmills in my riding, I have five pulp mills, and I have some chemical plants. It's truly a heavily industrialized riding. A large amount of the timber supply in the province is located in my riding. The management of these companies that do business in my riding are very pleased to support this piece of legislation. Many of them have spoken to me personally. Many of them have come forward and said that they really feel comfortable that we are going to have long-term certainty on the land base. Many of these companies have been in families for several generations. Lakeland sawmill is a good example of one of the mills that has been passed down through the generations.

When you see how land use went through the latter part of the eighties and certainly through the nineties, there was an ongoing concern about: are we actually going to have a place to practise forestry in this province? As you saw that incremental number start rolling up in terms of park designations, there was the concern: where are we going to practise forestry, and where are we going to get our fibre supply from? They've got the sawmill sitting there that perhaps is a $100 million investment — a $100 million sawmill — with 250 or 300 employees working in the mill and many, many more working in the bush, harvesting timber, bringing it to the mill on an ongoing basis. There was very real concern by those individuals that they would not be able to pass it on to another generation in their family. This operation that had already gone through several generations would come to a standstill if we did not designate some land specifically targeted towards resource extraction and, in fact, effective resource management and integrated resource management.

To the naysayers that talk about this as being a sell-off of a Crown asset, I say no. I say either you haven't read this legislation, or you don't understand the legislation — one of the two — because in fact it is exactly the opposite. You know, I wish the folks who take the time to criticize would also take the time to be educated in the process, because clearly they have not made the effort that they need to make.

Another one of the issues and concerns that was brought up to me through the discussions I had…. I presented on the working forest and the working landscape in probably six or eight different speeches since last May or June, through the summer season. One of

the questions that was asked of me on an ongoing basis was: what does this do to our land use planning that's already gone through, the LRMPs? There was some concern from people at the tables that they'd put a tremendous amount of effort into the local land use plans. What would happen to those land use plans? The working forest landscape or the working landscape actually enhances those plans. It actually takes the plans to a whole new level, puts some teeth behind those plans, mandates the plans, builds on the plans. Those are absolutely critical features of this piece of legislation. Once you actually sit down and have the discussion with the individuals that were at the land use tables, they are in fact very supportive of the direction this minister and this government have taken around land use planning and around the extension — a very, very positive feature, I believe, in terms of the further development of the land use plans.

It's an interesting thing, Mr. Speaker. I have one land use plan that's quite extensively developed in Mackenzie, the Mackenzie LRMP, and then I have the Prince George LRMP, which perhaps is a little bit lower-level LRMP. Then, of course, we have the Cariboo LRMP as well, which is a fairly high-level plan.

Generally speaking, when you have a fairly effective LRMP that has been put in place by a broad selection of the community that's well represented, you have an effective plan. Most of those folks are quite well educated on the notion around a working landscape and are very accepting of that notion. It gives you certainty over the land base, and it allows you to know where you're going to be working — whether it's in the forest industry, in the mining industry, in the energy industry or around agriculture. And agriculture is a big component of this whole equation. So there are a lot of very positive comments that come from high-level LRMP tables around the working landscape.

Another key initiative — I can't overemphasize how important this is and really, in my mind, how courageous this is for this minister — is to move from the model of statutory decision-making authority where the decision is vested in an individual within the bureaucracy — typically a regional manager or district manager — to a delegated decision-making authority where ultimately the elected official has the end decision-making authority or that decision is made by order-in-council — one of the two.

How better to hold people accountable than to know you're electing them every four years? One of the beauties of this government is that you know exactly when the next election will occur: May 17, 2005. The folks that are uncomfortable with a land use plan ultimately can hold this ministry — can hold me; can even hold you, Mr. Speaker — accountable on May 17, 2005, if they're not happy with the land use decision.

You know what? That's the way it should be. We should be held accountable for that. We shouldn't divest that authority and that accountability to an individual that's hired and reportable to various governments over the years. I suspect it will be criticized at times; I suspect this minister will be criticized for having delegated decision-making authority. I'm sure there will be folks out who will not like that notion, but I say good on him. I believe that is a courageous move, and I think it's absolutely the right move for this minister and this government to take.

Enough about delegated versus statutory decision-making authority, but I wanted to comment on that because I thought it was so important. As we sit in this House, I often think to myself about the importance of the types of decisions we make. Oftentimes our focus tends to be on health care, education, social services, policing and all of the various ministries. Even the Minister of Transportation gets attention from time to time for all the fine work she does maintaining the highways in our province and putting all the new asphalt down. In particular, the riding of the member for Peace River South, I notice, is getting excessive volumes of asphalt this particular season. I was quite shocked, in fact. I'd like it just to move a little further south. The next riding to the south would be better, perhaps, for next year. But I digress.

Oftentimes we talk about all the various other ministries, and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management tends not to get that much attention. But ultimately, where does the money come from for the hospital located in the member for Vancouver-Burrard's riding? I've picked on him twice today already.

All of the health care facilities, all of the schools, all of the social service facilities — where does the money come from to drive those facilities forward? Well, it's not generated in downtown Vancouver, as much as some people would like to think. Where it is generated is in the heartlands. That's where the money comes from, and it comes from the land base, by and large. Seventy-one percent of the provincial economy can be directly traced back to the land base from ridings like Cariboo North, my riding of Prince George–Mount Robson and Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the largest riding in the province. All of those various ridings, even that of the member for Port Alberni, are key to our having the type of economy we want to have to provide the social services that are in such strong demand in the large urban centres.

That income comes directly from the resource extraction industries like forestry, mining and energy. All of those industries benefit directly from the work of this particular piece of legislation, so I am very, very pleased to stand in support of this legislation. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we need to continue to push this legislation forward.

I noted, when I looked through the legislation last spring, that we are taking 48 percent of the province and establishing it as a working landscape. Now, let's keep in mind that we have 95 million hectares in this province and that in an average year, I believe, we harvest less than one-third of 1 percent of the entire work-

ing forest. To put that in perspective, if you never planted another tree in this province, it would take 300 years at the current harvesting rates to log every tree that we have, and I'm pretty sure we'd see a little underbrush that would grow up in the meantime.

The notion we are approaching here is one of having a large landscape, a large land base, that we can work with. When you have that larger land base, you are not overextracting from any one segment of the particular land base. You're creating an environment where you're effectively managing it.

We have incredible technologies. In Prince George there are, I believe, around 180 technology companies, and many of those companies actually are directly related to the type of work this minister is participating in here today. McGregor Model Forest Group is an excellent example. They have done some tremendous modelling around what the future looks like for our province based on several different scenarios. A lot of those rely very, very much on the notion around the working landscape and being able to effectively manage our forests.

You know, when I think back to 30 years ago, I recall something that was viewed as a devastating event. That was the spruce bark beetle infestation in the Bowron River valley. At that particular point in time there was a very large valley — I guess it's about 60 or 70 miles long and perhaps seven, eight or ten miles wide — that was infested with the spruce bark beetle. Every tree in the whole valley was killed.

Through an effective approach to forest management, that valley is now a vibrant valley. It is absolutely spectacular, with trees that are about 30 years old through intensive reforestation projects. The valley is full of wildlife today. There's a tremendous number of moose, bear, salmon, elk and deer in the valley. I took some time a few weeks ago to drive through the valley, and it really is spectacular.

We need to be able to show people the results of an effective approach to forest management. When you have a working landscape, you're talking about that approach over a very long period of time. I've already noted that we harvest less than one-third of 1 percent every year of the trees on our landscape, and to actually take a look at the Bowron River valley now and see what has occurred in that particular area really demonstrates the approach that we have taken to effective forest management.

Then there are all the other pieces of the equation. B.C. is one of the largest carbon sinks anywhere in the world, and there's much work that we can do around that. The working landscape actually allows us to develop that knowledge and approach it from a longer-term plan.

When you take carbon dioxide in the air, trees consume carbon dioxide. They release oxygen, and they retain carbon inside the tree. That's what we refer to when we use the term "carbon sequestration." That is a thing we need to develop a greater level of knowledge around. We need to have a better understanding. Especially as we move into the world of Kyoto, we need to do an effective job of managing carbon sequestration. Certainly, the working landscape helps us in that.

I think one of the features some folks find to be of concern to them is the notion of no net loss to the working landscape, but that really is what makes this legislation work. When you have a no-net-loss clause that ensures that you continue to manage that landscape where you have 45 million hectares on an ongoing basis as you move forward, then people are a lot more thoughtful in the decisions they have to make about just how important that area is.

My colleague from North Island has pointed out an area to me that the environmental movement has been targeting. It was burned to the ground, I gather, about 60 years ago. Now it has become a heritage area, and it has a bunch of spindly little trees on it that actually are moving into some second-growth harvesting. When do you say: "Enough"? No-net-loss actually says: "Enough, but if you want to do a swap, we're willing to talk about it." It actually creates some incentive to bring the environmental movement back to a little more level position.

In our province we have, as I've said, 12½ percent parkland, I guess. About 5 percent of the landscape out there is in private hands. Then the non-forested area lands — which, of course, are the lakes and rivers and mountaintops — are another 34 percent, which leaves us 48 percent for working forest and then about 1 percent for other federal lands. You know, it should be noted that a lot of that 5 percent of private lands actually is in the form of working forest, particularly here on Vancouver Island where we have the E&N lands which are quite substantial.

The working forest is really about long-term management. It's about thinking how we're going to manage this province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now — but more importantly, 100 years, 200 years or 300 years from now. One of the things I believe this government has not gotten any credit for up until now is our long-range planning. Here's a government that actually produces three-year budgets. We actually have the foresight to look ahead and plan out like you would a business. If you were going to make capital investments, how would you make those decisions? You want to have a long-term perspective and a long-term plan.

Some people suggest we don't have a plan. Well, I can tell you, there are others who suggest that sometimes we plan ourselves to death, but it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to make sure we have an effective plan in place. This is an extension of those three-year service plans, those three-year budgets. It actually talks about where my son — and perhaps if I am fortunate enough to have a grandson at some point and perhaps a great-grandson or grandchild and so on — will have a place to practise forestry, to practise mining, to ensure that we have the income we need in order to provide the services my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard is looking for. Three times today — sorry. We can have the hospitals and the

health care and the doctors — the highest-paid doctors and the highest-paid nurses anywhere in Canada.

All those components of the equation are very, very important. They're critical parts of the working forest. It really is about a long-term plan or strategy in terms of how we're going to manage our forests. You know, the world is invited to come in. One of the great things about doing a long-term plan is that the world can actually look at you and say: "What is your plan? Where do you see yourself being as a province ten years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now?" I can tell you that I believe the electorate, when they take the time to sit down and actually review our plan and review our strategy around the working landscape, will be very, very supportive. In fact, virtually all of the folks I have talked to in my end of the world — when I've taken the time to sit down and really thoroughly explain what the working landscape is all about — are very supportive of it.

I think the other thing that's really worth noting is that this minister has had about as much consultation as you could possibly ask for around the working forest. I started talking about this particular notion, or the working landscape, two and a half years ago.

I can tell you that I produce a weekly e-mail. In that weekly e-mail I have focused on the working landscape at least four or five times and redirected many of my constituents to look at the website to have an opportunity to provide comment. Virtually without exception, what I heard as I did that was: "Why would I want to comment on this? It just seems to make so much sense."

This is where we need to take our province: to have a designated land base where we know where we're going to work, where our sons and daughters are going to work in the future and where we know how we're going to be able to afford the type of infrastructure that we all desire and hear so much about on an ongoing basis. I had very, very positive receptions around this notion.

As we move forward, I can tell you that I am getting much more interest in investment in my particular area. I had a visit from a constituent who came in about three or four months ago. He was expressing some initial concern at the direction we were taking in developing some of the forest policy. I asked him some questions: "If we could do something to help you invest…?" This was an individual who has built a sawmill previously and has invested heavily in our province, and he's getting a little bit older now. I said to him: "If we could do something that would help you, encourage you to reinvest in the province and reinvest in the heartlands, what would that be?" He outlined two or three different things he felt we needed to do as a provincial government in order to encourage him to invest and develop a new business in our area. You know what? We'd done every one of them. He just didn't know about it.

One of the comments he made was about the working forest. We chatted about that a bit. I showed him some of the documentation — information, the discussion paper that was available on the website. Once he reviewed those things, he made the decision to start working on a strategy and a plan that will eventually, if he is successful, result in a facility that could be in the order of $30 million to $40 million and could easily employ 100 or more people in Prince George. Once he had the opportunity to actually review the things that we've done and understood what our strategies were, he was very pleased to put his money back where his mouth was and to start thinking about developing a further business.

That is just one of two stories I would like to share with you, because there's another one. This example is actually growing today. There was a business started in Prince George shortly after this government was elected on the basis of purchasing larger volumes of private fibre. They were concerned that they would not have a secure source of supply, so they were very eager for us to have a designated landscape where they knew they were going to be able to work in the long-term scheme of things.

This business located itself quite strategically in the BCR industrial site in Prince George and was focusing principally, as I said, on purchasing volume. Over the last two years, though, an interesting thing has occurred. They started out with about six or seven employees in this particular operation — not a large company, a relatively small one. Within a few months they were up around 15 or 20 employees. The business had started to grow.

They actually diversified their business, and one of the things — interestingly, we talk about value-added products — they started creating was wood that looked old. They started creating a product that could be used on movie sets that needed to have that kind of old, tarnished look. I wouldn't want to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, as old or tarnished, certainly.

P. Bell: I can't think of anyone else in the room, though, so I'll point at you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking of old and tarnished, they created this specific product, and they've been very successful at marketing this product. They now have in this particular mill 125 employees creating old and tarnished products — 125 employees in this mill — and it was done specifically because they knew they had access to fibre.

In conclusion, I can tell you I am very enthusiastic about this particular legislation. I think this minister has done a fine job of crafting it, of putting it together. I think he has accepted all the input that's necessary. Certainly, it has been out in the public for long enough, and I think he's very courageous in moving from statutory decision-making authority to delegated decision-making authority. This does fulfil another one of our new-era commitments. Let's not forget that. This is about actually developing a future for B.C.

V. Anderson: We have in the gallery today a group of exciting young citizens of Canada who are here to understand what's going on at the Legislature. They've just come from the museum. They had the opportunity to see the fossils in the museum, and they've now come to see the live fossils here in the Legislature.

We want to welcome them and wish the students of John Henderson a good time today. We're glad the sunshine came out in Victoria for them, and we congratulate them for their energy and enthusiasm in coming to visit the Legislature, the principal Legislature of the province of British Columbia. The best to all of you. Please help me to welcome them.

T. Christensen: I was listening carefully to the member for Prince George North. I'm not sure he has left much to add, but I will certainly take the opportunity nevertheless.

I, too, am a strong supporter of Bill 46, and I believe it's something long overdue here in the province. Really, Bill 46 is a result of reflection on years of public discussion and consultation throughout this entire province about land use. More importantly, Bill 46 is the means to move from that important discussion and consultation to action, and it is action in this province that has been sorely lacking for some time.

It's hard to think of anything that is more important to the social and economic future of communities all around this province than effective land use policies and decisions. In this province, as all members of this House will know, we have a history of reliance on the bounty that the land provides, but we also have a history of appreciation of the unsurpassed natural environment we have in our province. What Bill 46 will do is enable government to proceed with effective land use decision-making to provide opportunity and certainty to communities around the province for this generation and, certainly, for generations to come.

Bill 46 is really one part of the challenge we face in bringing certainty to the land base throughout the province. We still have issues around land claims and treaty negotiations. Those are critically important issues, and it's important that we move forward on resolving those issues in our quest to bring certainty to the land base. We've had the LRMP process over the last number of years. That has made progress in bringing some decisions and some certainty around where we need to go with our land base, and Bill 46 is the means by which we can now follow up on that initial discussion and consultation process.

We need and are developing progressive natural resource policies based on principles of sustainability for our environment and for the future of our communities right throughout the province. Given the importance of land use issues, they're often at the forefront of public debate in this province. Too often when we talk about land use, we talk about it in terms of competing interests. It's this industry against that industry. It's environmental protection against natural resource extraction. We don't need to talk about it in single terms.

I think the root of that conflict is our propensity to think of land use in exclusive terms. In very many cases, as any of us knows from just looking at our own back yards and our own communities — certainly, this is true in my part of the province — the use of an area of land for one purpose need not be exclusive. The reality is that one use need not preclude other uses. This legislation recognizes that. It recognizes that land uses can co-exist, and it also recognizes they can change over time.

Bill 46 is part of the government's new-era commitment to establish a working forest. As the member for Prince George North pointed out, and it's worth pointing out again, it is yet another new-era commitment made and new-era commitment kept. I know some probably get tired of us reminding British Columbians that, yes, we've now met one more promise, but the reality is that it's been a long time since British Columbians have had a government that could actually stand up and say: "Guess what. We gave you a platform, and yet again we can tick off one more accomplishment in terms of keeping those promises met during a campaign." It's a matter of accountability that we should be reminding British Columbians of and, quite frankly, that all British Columbians should require of all their governments.

I do want to comment very briefly on the working forest initiative. The member from Prince George did comment on the importance of that at some length. I want to reiterate the comment he made, because I know there seems to be an unfortunate amount of misunderstanding around what the working forest initiative means. It is not a sell-off of forest resources in the province, but rather it is an important attempt and an important step in bringing some certainty to the working forest land base in the province in recognition of the critically important role that forestry has provided in this province — both historically but certainly that this government believes it will continue to play as we move forward.

It's a fact that sustainable management of our forests has been the lifeblood of communities and families throughout this province, and this government is committed to strengthening those forestry opportunities for this generation but equally importantly, as the member for Prince George North noted, for future generations. The working forest is then part and parcel of the government's more comprehensive forestry revitalization plan which will see forestry again become the economic generator it should be and that it has the potential to be in this province so all of us throughout this province, regardless of the community we live in,

benefit directly either from the jobs and the opportunities provided in the forests in our back yard or from the many public services that forestry or forest revenues allow all of us to enjoy here in British Columbia.

Beyond the working forest, Bill 46 also provides opportunity to bring certainty to a number of other endeavours in the province: mining, tourism, recreation, ranching, agriculture, conservation opportunities and other uses. All of these are important uses of land in our province that British Columbians value. They want to ensure those opportunities exist in the future, but they want to ensure there's some certainty around where those opportunities best exist and how we bring some certainty in terms of avoiding conflict around those various opportunities.

In reviewing Bill 46, the only objection I can really see anybody having to it is that they might stand up and say: "Well, you didn't give the whole province to my group for my activity." The reality is that what Bill 46 does is provide a mechanism by which we can balance those competing interests around the province and move forward for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Bill 46 allows for the designation of areas of Crown land for one or more purposes. That "or more" is the critical part of that provision of the legislation, because it emphasizes that we're not talking, in most cases, about exclusive use of any one part of the province or any part of Crown land in the province. We're talking about finding a means where uses can co-exist as that is appropriate, but also, in some circumstances, you may have a piece of land or a one-use that for very good reasons can't co-exist with some others. Government needs to stand up and make those tough decisions when those issues arise so that people living in the province and people looking to invest in the province can say: "Yes, we know what the playing field is here in British Columbia."

Bill 46 allows for objectives to be set for the management of that designated land and for government to require approvals, licences and other authorities where those are necessary for the effective management of that designated land. All of those are the mechanics of Bill 46 that work together to ensure we have effective land use in this province.

If people reflect on the last 28 months or so, they'll see that this government has done more to bring some certainty to the land base in this province than has ever been done by previous governments in this province to date. We're making progress, certainly in terms of land claims issues, on a number of agreements-in-principle which are critical to bringing some of the underlying certainty that is necessary.

We've developed the two-zone policy in mining, which provides an attractive mechanism whereby mining is again looking at British Columbia and saying, "Yes, we can see the government of British Columbia thinks that we're an important industry, that we can provide opportunity for British Columbians, and yes, we are again going to look at exploring and making investment in the province."

We have the working forest initiative that I mentioned earlier. What Bill 46 does is allow that drive towards certainty to continue. Bill 46 provides the necessary framework to make the tough decisions ahead, but the reality is that there still is much work to be done with respect to specific designations around the province. I certainly don't think the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is going to be able to have too much rest too soon. We do want to keep him working hard.

Finally in this province, after a long, long time of waiting, we now have a government that's committed to doing that work — to making the tough, challenging and necessary decisions that arise and to moving the province forward. It's long overdue, and I'm glad and very proud to stand and support Bill 46 to further us down that path.

J. MacPhail: As we've seen with so much of the so-called reform of how we manage and regulate the use of public lands, this bill continues the government penchant for putting the proverbial horse before the cart. I was interested to listen to the comments from the previous speaker and find exactly what in the legislation he relies upon for his enthusiasm and his optimism. Clearly, he's got information that the rest of the public doesn't have and certainly that this Legislature doesn't have.

This bill is the cart before the horse. So he's got some secrets there that no one else knows about. The minister needs this bill to implement the Premier's promise for a working forest law. We don't actually have the working forest law yet, but this will somehow deliver something for who-knows-what.

I guess the reason why we're doing this legislation now is because the minister's plans for the working forest are not going well, and that means things aren't going well for the Premier either. The minister put his working forest plan out for public consultation, and here's what he got back: 97 percent of those who participated in his consultation process said: "Don't do it." That's the same thing they told the previous government, and that government listened.

Let me quote from the Working Forest in British Columbia consultation report prepared for this government by Daryl Brown Associates for the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management just last August.

Before I do that, let me remind the minister and this House that while much of the criticism of his working forest initiative is from environmentalists, they are not alone in being concerned that the working forest is not only bad for the environment but also bad for business. I actually heard the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management dismiss his whole consultation process as being vested interests from the environmental groups. He conducts a consultation, and then he dismisses it. Isn't that interesting? Unfortunately, he dismissed it too soon, because business groups are opposed to this.

Perhaps the minister will be aware of this statement from his own consultation report: "Other business in

terests, including ranching and agriculture, tourism, mining, and oil and gas generally support the idea of designating a land base for securing commercial resource activity but fear that the WF as proposed will detract from certainty for their sectors."

Here's how the report summarized the most common perceptions people have of the working forest initiative, and I quote from the government's own report:

I continue to read from the government's own consultation report. People are concerned that the working forest initiative will:

The government's own consultation report goes on to say that the working forest initiative will open the door for increased sales or privatization of the public forest land. It will override or compromise existing and future land and resource management plans or other locally developed land and resource management plans. It will mean that allowable annual cut levels will automatically be increased to unsustainable levels in the working forest designation. It will impact negatively on existing or future tenure rights that are granted in the working forest to other sectors, and it will result in Crown land decisions that lack transparency and accountability because as a result of proposed changes to the Land Act, they will be made through order-in-council or ministerial order rather than by the full Legislature.

That's what the government's own consultation report that they commissioned said — not exactly a ringing endorsement for proceeding. Nonetheless, this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management figures he has the go-ahead to proceed.

Contrary to whatever we heard from the Premier during the election, land use decisions are not going to be done in open cabinet, so I was taken aback that the member from Vernon suggested a new-era promise had been met. His little checkmark is going to have to be unchecked, because these land use decisions are not going to be done in open cabinet — even though, frankly, we know what a farce and waste of taxpayers' money that partisan infomercial has become — but are going to be done by regulation behind closed doors.

This bill allows for the minister alone or for cabinet to designate land uses through its regulatory power, so I would be happy to know what the member from Vernon was talking about when he said it was going to be done in a way that was promised in the new-era document.

There are going to be regulations to determine conservation and management of our natural resources — not legislation, not debate, but regulations. There are going to be regulations by cabinet alone to resolve land use conflicts. There are going to be regulations to designate land for specified economic development opportunities. There are going to be regulations to establish objectives for Crown resources and Crown land. What exactly did the member from Vernon mean when he said that the new-era promise of openness had been met? So far everything's going to be done behind closed doors. Rather than actually having delivered on a new-era promise, the Premier faces a huge credibility gap. British Columbians don't trust him, and they don't think he's acting in their best interests. This bill, the Land Amendment Act, 2003, is exactly emblematic of why British Columbians feel that way.

The authority and control over our public resources are being, it would seem, reserved for the private profit of private corporations and that alone. The public trust that is our natural resources is being redefined by this government to be turned into raw material for private profit. That control is being passed over to those forest companies without public input or consultation — or, more to the point, input and consultation that is actually listened to. The government did do a consultation. It's just that right after it was delivered, the minister dismissed it completely. If he had accepted the public consultation, this legislation would not be before us today.

Decisions that rightfully belong as the nexus of public discussion and decision-making are moving to behind closed doors. That is not how British Columbians want their natural heritage managed. Why not do the right thing and withdraw this bill until such time as the minister, whatever minister — the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management or the Minister of Forests — is ready to actually show us what his working forest law is? We don't know. It's not before the Legislature. I find it hilarious that these government members are standing up and talking about working forests as if anybody knows. They've become so arrogant in their majority that they think what they do behind

closed doors in caucus is what the whole world agrees with and what the whole world knows about. It's unbelievable that any of these government caucus members can stand here and tell us that the working forest is good, because we don't know. Oops, the government forgot to put that bill before the Legislature.

Here we are today with a piece of legislation, and we have no idea how it relates to the working forest law because it isn't anywhere to be found by the public. It certainly isn't in this Legislature, and it certainly isn't in front of the people of British Columbia. Why don't we wait until we actually see what the working forest legislation is, let the minister stand before us and before the public and prove the worth of that plan, before we pass this legislation? Then and only then should he be bringing forward legislation to implement the plan. That's all this piece of legislation is about: implementing a secret plan, and nobody except, I guess, the government members has any idea of its content.

B. Suffredine: I feel much more comfortable now rising to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition than I did this morning. I don't have, in any way, the same kinds of concerns that she expressed here today. They were more fears that she doesn't know how to support and that are, in fact, consistent with the kinds of concerns I've heard from people who have expressed concerns about this legislation to me.

I've received a number of inquiries over the past few weeks by people that are concerned. I'm only left with one concern at the end of those weeks — and having to look into it for a number of people. That concern is really that we call it the working forest, not the working land base. That seems to be the cause of the misunderstanding and the fears. The Leader of the Opposition suggested there were a number of fears that it would result in the sale of Crown lands, that it would result in the reduction of parkland, that it would create a downward trend of job loss — interesting comments from that party. There would be a hierarchy of industry importance, and the annual allowable cut would be increased, naturally. There would be a lack of transparency. All those things — just fears, just unfounded fears — were put forward.

I've had to look at it, and I've come to the conclusion that it's none of the above. However, I do think the reference to it as the working land base might help to clarify for the public what it's all about.

This legislation is not just about forests and forestry. Ultimately, it's about certainty. It will provide certainty for forestry, of course, but it will also create certainty for recreational users, tourism operators, miners, ranchers and those in the oil and gas industry. This legislation allows us to plan our use of the land base in the most effective way so that we can get the most benefit for all British Columbians, not just for one user or another.

Environmental groups have come out opposing this legislation. They speak as though it will allow us to log the entire province, which of course could not be further from the truth. I know these environmental groups actually care about our forests and want what's best for the forest, but we need to find a balance between what percentage of land should be parks and protected areas and what lands we should be using for our major resource industries and our recreation.

As I said earlier, I've had a number of inquiries from people who've obtained misinformation. In fact, I received at one point a flyer distributed by an organization called workingforest.org, which seemed to contain information that was deliberately false. I took that information, reviewed it and checked it against the webpage for Sustainable Resource Management and found that many of the things that were circulated in this flyer were simply as misleading as they could be. They were the opposite of what was accurate.

I've had inquiries from people by e-mail. Each time I get a written inquiry that suggests things like the Leader of the Opposition puts forward — and it's fairly common for them to say they fear it will result in the sale of Crown lands, Crown forests — I've referred them to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's webpage, asked them to look it up, read it carefully and come back to me with specific concerns. Almost unanimously, no one has concerns after that.

The only concern they express is the fear about the future, the fear that some day down the road someone might change this. To me that expresses more fear that the former government might come back, than that the present government will change its plan to create certainty in the forests. Concern about what this bill does is not there — just what someone might do sometime in the future.

The minister here has done a lot of good work creating the balance that we need by consulting with communities and by doing some of the much-needed long-term land use planning. That's something that's been lacking up until now.

This legislation will help us create that balance, and it will help us create certainty not only for industry but also for those environmental groups who want to use the land for things that create jobs, like the tourism and back-country recreation industries. In saying that, I can give a pretty specific example of one of the things that's often overlooked by people that — well, let's say — live in the city. When you're from the centre of Vancouver and you want back-country recreation — doing some activity like mountain biking — you don't think about what you're going to ride on when you go mountain biking. You think you'll go up there, and you'll use a trail. But what's going to create the trail? How is it that you're going to get access to the back country if the trail is never maintained? The industries like forestry and mining, historically, have created that access. Kokanee Glacier Park is probably one of the best examples of a place that's accessible now because it was a highly mineralized zone and created mines in the early years, around the 1890s and 1900s. Roads that were built into what is now the Kokanee Glacier Park still exist because the miners in the old days knew how to build them well enough. They didn't want to have to run a

grader up them every week, so they built them with a little bit of a slope to the outside so the water would run off. They've stood the test of time. Some of them are almost a century old, and the only thing that happens to them is that a few trees and things grow up in them if they're not regularly travelled.

Recreational users should also understand that being able to use the same area as a mining company might actually be complementary to their needs. After all, the mining company only operates for a limited portion of the year. It opens up the road, grades it, keeps it in good shape and makes it so that they can go in and do all the activities they want to do. A lot of it is mountain-climbing and things like that. To get to the tallest peak, you often don't want to start from the very bottom of the valley — at least not on foot.

Those who oppose this legislation are treading on pretty dangerous ground. Uncertainty about the planned use of our land is a silent but deadly job-killer. The previous government used uncertainty as a tool to kill jobs in my region and throughout the rest of the province. I know many of us, particularly a number of friends I have who are prospectors, cringe when they are reminded of Windy Craggy. A great deal of money was spent investing in that northern mining project before a land use designation in the middle of the process was simply changed, like the flip of a switch, in a cabinet meeting. The Leader of the Opposition complains about secrecy, but certainly that's how they did it. As a result, that project was abandoned. That's billions of dollars of revenue for British Columbians.

It's that uncertainty about what government will do with our land base that scared off mining investors throughout the 1990s. It's that uncertainty, created by the former government, that — no wonder — makes people nervous. It will take a little time before they have confidence that our cabinet — which, just as a matter of interest, has made all of the land use planning decisions in open cabinet to this point…. That's been the standard practice. The Leader of the Opposition expresses concerns that it will be secret, but in fact the practice has been the exact opposite.

There is no question that there would be more mining investment and more mining jobs in my riding had the previous government taken responsibility for the land base and developed a plan that allowed all compatible uses full access. They failed to do that, and the result has been uncertainty and conflict.

We won't let that happen. People in my region want the opportunities, and they want to be able to use the land base to create jobs. Whether it's in forests, mining, recreation, ranching or tourism, creating certainty will give investors confidence to develop projects in the Kootenays and around the province, which will create jobs and revenues that support families and help sustain and support the great health care system and education we all enjoy.

L. Mayencourt: It's a great pleasure to stand here and speak to Bill 46. My riding has been mentioned quite a few times in the Legislature today.

Some might wonder: what would the member for Vancouver-Burrard have to say about the working forests? It's interesting to me, because…. You know, the member for Prince George North spoke about how the resource community on which this province is built, on which our education system and our health care system are built, is all up there in the heartlands, but I would venture to guess that I probably have more people working in the mining industry in my riding than any other riding in British Columbia.

There are a lot of people who work in the mining sector in my community. It's the home of the Mining Association of British Columbia. It's the home of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. It's the home of thousands of men and women who make their living out of the mining sector. You know, it's true of the forest sector as well. Although I know there are probably some more individuals working in other ridings in the forestry sector, I've got a lot of people that depend upon the forest sector for their living in my riding. They care about it; they're cautious about how they work in that industry.

We got a whole bunch of people in tourism — Tourism Vancouver, Tourism British Columbia, Council of Tourism Associations. All of those folks rely on this huge province of ours to be able to take people out for tours, to show them on eco-tours what our province is made of. I get it that maybe a lot of those resources are up in the north or in the heartlands of British Columbia, but they touch every British Columbian. In my riding, it's because there are a lot of them who work there, but it's also because of the kids that go to school in my riding and the seniors who live in my community and go up to the hospital, up to St. Paul's.

We sit in this chamber. It's a beautiful, beautiful chamber. What do we see? These beautiful desks made out of wood. On the walls we have the marble. We have the beautiful chair that you sit in, Mr. Speaker. I mean, we're looking at a wonderful example of some of the things that British Columbia has to offer.

I am not ashamed that our province has been built on the resource sector. I think it's wonderful; I think it's important. We have a great big province that has much to offer all of us. We've heard an awful lot in this chamber about what the working forest initiative will do. It's true that the working forest initiative is going to provide certainty, and it will help to revitalize communities around British Columbia. Now, that's great news — great news for me and great news for the people in my riding who work in these sectors and great news for British Columbians all over — but I also think it's important to talk about what the working forest is not.

The working forest is not about just providing certainty for the forest industry. The name "working forest" — I think a lot of people look at that and go: "Oh, that's trees." Well, it's actually a land base. It's a base of land that we have in this province that belongs to the people of British Columbia, which is there to be used by British Columbians to create jobs, to create communities, to create schools and hospitals. It is not just

about the forest sector; it is about everything that makes British Columbia what it is. It is also about providing certainty for people who want to come to this province and invest in a business or start an exploration task on a mine, for tourism operators, visitors and all of the economic benefits that spin off from those activities.

The working forest is not about privatization. I look at this bill, Bill 46. It's just five pages. It's eight different sections. It's a very small bill, but it's attached to this bill, the Land Act. It's attached to the Land Act, which has 110 different sections. It adds these eight to it to become 118, so it's a large act, and it should be. But section 23 of this act is very clear. It says that it is illegal to sell Crown land for timber production purposes. Therefore, it still remains in the hands of British Columbians, where it will always be.

We aren't giving away 45 million hectares of land to private corporate interests. We're not. We're giving them access to it. We're creating land use certainty that will bring investor confidence back to the communities throughout the province. We are not undermining the tourism businesses and recreational opportunities in this province. In fact, the working forest provisions include tourism activities.

The working forest is not an assault on our parks. New parks and protected areas will be possible where government or this Legislature decides it is in the public interest. This is the right place for those decisions to be made — in public, where they can be debated with the Leader of the Opposition, with the members of this government, with the cabinet. This is the right place for those decisions to come about.

Conservation targets are part of the working forest. The working forest does not impede first nations land settlements. In fact, when you look at our record in the last 20 months or so, you'll see that we've actually progressed on first nations claims. We've got some negotiations happening, and we're actually moving forward with that. The working forest is just another step along the way, and it actually helps to facilitate those future treaties, those agreements. We are really focused in this bill on creating land certainty for everyone, including first nations people.

This act is not just about rocks in the ground or marble or wood or aquaculture or tourism. It's really about people. It's about people that live in this province. I have had the great opportunity, on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, to travel this province four times, and I've had the opportunity to do it on another couple of committees. All in all, I think I've been to a good portion of this province, and I've probably met thousands and thousands of British Columbians. In meeting those British Columbians, I see people — moms and dads — who are trying to earn a living to raise their kids and stay in their communities, to help their communities grow.

This bill is about people in Prince Rupert trying to make a living. This is about people in Kitkatla being able to engage in agricultural activities, being able to ranch. It's about letting people of the Kootenays have an opportunity to take the great mineral wealth they possess, which we all possess, and put it to work for British Columbians.

It's a very important piece of legislation because it deals with that very important part of what we all are. We are people. We are people who need to have jobs, who need to have opportunity. Sometimes there is a great disconnect in this province, and I've talked about it before, but it is really a disconnect between urban and non-urban areas.

The other day I was having a conversation with the member from Prince Rupert, and we started to talk about that disconnect. He expressed it to me very well. He said: "You know, we come down to Vancouver or Victoria, and we see your roads, we see your cars, we see your hospitals, and we see all of the wonderful things you've done. We know there used to be trees here, but there aren't anymore. We know the buildings you've built are from the rocks or the timber of this land, and we know that you're doing very well." And we are; we really are. From the point of view of someone in Prince Rupert, when they have a dream, when they want to pursue an opportunity, someone from down here goes up there and says, "No, you can't do that. You can't do that because we're going to protect a view corridor for a mountain landscape," or what have you.

There are lots of beautiful places in this province, and, yes, we want to protect those areas, and, yes, we want to protect those views and all of that. But you know, I have never met a forester or a miner or a tourism operator or a rancher who wasn't an environmentalist, who didn't care about the land they were working. Why? Because they respect it. It provides food for them, it provides opportunity for them, and it provides a way for them to keep their communities. That is a noble cause, and that drives them to be environmentalists, as I believe most British Columbians are. We care about the beautiful province that we have.

Today we're talking about a province that is the size of Oregon, Washington and California. It's a big, big land — 95 million hectares. Twelve percent of that has been dedicated to parks in this province. You know, down the road we might find we want to come up with other protected areas. We should do that in the full public view. We should do that in this House, and we will.

We also need to understand that people around this province want to have a job, want to live in the communities in the heartlands and want to raise their kids. Everything we touch today comes from natural resources. The glass we drink from — it's from the mining sector; the wood on this desk, from the forest sector.

We can't afford to be holier than thou in Vancouver-Burrard or Victoria–Beacon Hill or whatever. We can't drive our cars to work and expect the rest of the world not to be able to have access to metals. We've got plugs here for our computers. Where would we be without

the minerals? It's important that we think about the balance between the social needs we have in our communities, the economic needs we have in our communities and the environmental needs.

With this bill we are providing the balance we need in British Columbia to assure British Columbians that we're doing the right thing and that when we do the right thing, we will be doing it in full public view in this chamber. It will make a difference for all British Columbians because it will open up the opportunity to take advantage of the resources that belong to each and every one of us in British Columbia.

W. Cobb: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 46. As many of you know, I was involved in another life in land use planning. I don't know what the member of the opposition was referring to when she said they had a forestry planning process that they abandoned, but I do know about a process called the CORE process — the Commission on Resources and Environment. That process was not about planning. That process was about social engineering, and that is why it failed.

With that, we in the Cariboo took charge of that process when the government of the day decided we were beyond coming to terms with the issue of trying to set some security in our area. We took control of that process, and we actually ended up negotiating a deal. That deal is called the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. I think Bill 46 will assist in the further securing of that plan and many of the processes that are going on and that have gone on in the province.

Our plan, the CCLUP, sets out many of the guidelines that were needed and that are needed as we move forward in plans around the province. We call it a living plan. I believe we need a living plan — a working plan and a living plan — to ensure that future generations have the flexibility and the ability to adapt and service and address their needs. We can't today determine what our children are going to need and what they want and what the future may develop. By developing a proper plan, which this legislation will help us do, we'll allow those future generations to adapt those plans to suit their needs. Like I said, this legislation will protect that.

Bill 46 will create economic and employment certainty by providing our communities, the community I live in, with the certainty we need — knowing where we can work, where there are jobs that our families depend on. Those jobs keep the B.C. economy growing. Whether it's agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, back-country recreation, mining or forestry. It's interesting that all of those sectors were involved in our land use planning. That's why I stayed involved for five years.

With the exception of two sectors, we did come to terms with the planning of our area to set up the future. The mining sector is one of the examples. This initiative accommodates a two-zone mineral policy, which confirms that all land outside parks and protected areas is open to mineral exploration and development — subject to application legislation — and also to develop access targets for subsurface and surface uses.

We just got back. We toured around the province over the summer on the mining task force, and we heard time and time again about the two-zone system. Can we mine? Can't we mine? What this will do is tell us we have two zones in this province — the protected areas and parks — and the rest of it will be open for mining. That's what the intent of this is, and that's where the plans will come at a later date.

As far as agriculture goes, agricultural land within this legislation will be available for disposition where the good economic analysis shows net benefits to the overall provincial needs. I think in areas like mine, particularly the Cariboo — where there's a lot of cattle industry, and they depend on the grazing lands and the access to the land — this will help secure those people.

There was mention by two different members here today regarding some of the information or misinformation that's out there. Bill 46 is not exclusive to logging. It's about the best use of land, whether it is set aside for environmental protection or industry development, and land will be assessed scientifically for highest and best use options economically, socially and environmentally.

Like other members, I think, I have heard and had phone calls and e-mails about the scare tactics going on out there that this is about selling our forests. That is absolutely untrue. It's absolutely wrong, and this has been mentioned by other members. The working forest is not about privatization. As the minister said, a current measure of this act, section 23, outlaws the sale of Crown land for timber production purposes, so anybody who's trying to spread that rumour is either misinformed or just trying to cause a problem.

Environmental protection is a fundamental commitment of the government and is a key component of forest management. Nothing in this legislation is intended to detract from goal. Greater certainty for the forest sector and other economic users can only be realized if there is also increased certainty on the environmental impacts.

Two of my main communities — the bigger communities — have supported this legislation, and I have letters in support of that. Those communities and councils know how important the type of security we need for the land base is, because they make those kinds of decisions on a daily basis in their communities. Although I support the intent of this legislation, I will have questions of clarification at the committee stage.

G. Trumper: I rise to speak to this particular bill. As many of you know, I represent a constituency that hasn't been mentioned this afternoon. We've heard about the north part of the province and the centre part of the province. I represent the west coast of Vancouver Island, which relies on the forest industry for its economic drive, which then results in the urban areas of

this province relying on our resources for the economic drive of this province. Over the last decade or so, it has fallen into a time when that hasn't been happening.

I represented the community that I live in — and I've lived in it for 33 years — on the Clayoquot Sound task force, which was put in place by the government of the day to try and work out some solutions for Clayoquot Sound. It was a very difficult time for a lot of us. I was physically assaulted during this time. Members of my family had threats phoned in over the telephone. It was a difficult time for many of us.

I note that in the news just recently, we had the issue of a grandmother who was on the Clayoquot Sound picket lines and also has had a problem with obeying the laws of British Columbia. I want to say that many people were put out of work at that time in the forest industry on the west coast, and to this day they are still struggling because of some of the decisions made ten years ago. The town of Ucluelet particularly, which relied on the forest industry for employment, is still struggling with the issue. They have many people in small forestry contracting companies who are looking at bankruptcy. They're finding it incredibly difficult. You know, the effects of what took place then had a domino effect not only on the west coast but through to Port Alberni — to our paper mills, to the many sawmills that are in the area and, consequently, to the economy.

I also, for some reason, was asked to sit on the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy by a particular minister of the day, which proved even more difficult to come to some agreement on issues. If we have a thriving economy, we are able to then provide the supports we need for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We are able to supply those programs we have that we need for the social programs. If we don't have a good economy, we're not able to provide all those services that are needed. If people are not employed, it causes many other problems. It causes family problems. It causes problems in bankruptcy to families. It involves problems with children. By having a job, it provides stability to the family, and it provides stability to the economy.

As we sat through the CORE process on Vancouver Island — and I think many of us felt at the time we were caught in that process — it was very, very obvious it was not the economy that was being looked at as the primary importance. I distinctly remember asking for the information on what the economic results were of the decisions that we were going to be making on Vancouver Island on land use decisions. I remember specifically asking it one day, and the next day the economic report was handed to us. I might say that I don't know how they could do an economic report on the effects on Vancouver Island of the land use issue within 24 hours.

That made it very apparent at the time that it was not the economy that was the most important issue. I want to say that those of us who live in the heartlands of this province, those of us who choose to live in resource-based communities, are environmentalists. That's why we live there. We like to live there. We don't want to live in the urban areas. We like to have our own homes. We like to have fresh air. We do not particularly want to live downtown, with all due respect to those who live in Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver has smog problems, traffic problems, high buildings and, as people say to me sometimes, little boxes to live in. We choose to live in these areas of the province.

It is vitally important that we have a plan for land use in this province. There was a time when we were going through all this turmoil ten years ago, and the difficulties that were there…. I can remember going on a tour of Europe with the Forest Alliance at the time to look at the differences in forest management and land management in Europe. Many times we were certainly told that Sweden had very good forest practices, and in some places they did. If you went further north, their practices weren't so good.

I've never forgotten the professional forester who came with us missing his plane. He sat next to a student. When he asked him where he was from, he was from Spain. He'd been to British Columbia for the summer. What had he been doing? Well, as a matter of fact, he said, he was in Victoria, and he was hostelling. He got offered $20 a day to go and hold a placard in the Carmanah Valley and the Walbran Valley to prevent logging. This young man didn't realize that he was sitting next to a professional forester, who was trying to do a good job in British Columbia and trying to do his job well. For many of those decisions made then — when we on the west coast were promised by the Premier of the day that no jobs would be lost — to three or four years ago, when my son, who is a professional forester, left British Columbia because he felt he could not do his job properly….

We need to get back to the time and the day when we are able to manage our land properly so that everybody has certainty, everybody knows what is going to happen in the various parts of the province, and it is clear that those who wish to be in forestry can do their job and add to the economy of this province and those who wish to be in tourism, which is a growing industry for British Columbia because we are seen as a safe place for international markets, can expand their businesses — and for mining, which for so many years has not been happening here. I have a cousin who many, many years ago came to British Columbia to get his mining experience. He is a mining engineer. I don't believe he stayed in British Columbia; I believe he went elsewhere in the international market. We need to have those assurances that we're able to do what needs to be done on the land.

Unfortunately — and it is unfortunate — I've had a few letters and phone calls regarding this particular bill, and there is a view out there, or it has been said, that this is an opportunity to sell Crown land. That is just not true, and it is not correct. I want to emphasize that it is just not correct. It is either misinformation, or

It is also not about preventing access to our Crown lands either. I have had calls from people in the tourism business who say they will not be able to access the back country. That is not true. As a matter of fact, they're not able to access the back country unless there are logging and mining roads, which enable access. They would not be able to get through into the back country in many places if there were not that access, which had been made by industry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I do support this at this time, but like a previous member of the Legislature has just said, I have some questions to ask of the minister when it gets to the committee stage so that some of the issues can be clarified for the general public. At this time, I would say it is most important that we pursue this, that we go forward with this plan so that we know we can have stability for our economy and our resource communities, and can also provide the employment needed that makes us the strong and vibrant province we should be and can be if we work towards making sure we know what we are going to be doing with the land in this province.

R. Visser: I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about the Land Act and this bill and the future of the province and how it relates to activities on the North Island and where we think we're going and where we'd like to go.

One of the concepts that has been mentioned a lot here in the chamber today and around is the notion of certainty. It's a difficult concept to grasp. For some in the resource world certainty has been compromised, because the goalposts have been moving for the last few years — sometimes on a monthly basis, sometimes on a weekly basis and sometimes on a daily basis. People can't tell if they're standing still or running anymore.

What certainty doesn't mean, though — and I think that's where we need to start — is that we're going back to the good old days or what people would like to think were the good old days — the way we used to do things, the way we used to act on the land base. That's not what certainty is. Certainty means that change will occur, but certainty means that inside of that change is a context. In that context the people who act on the land — the forest industry, the mining industry, the tourism industry, the aquaculture industry, all of them — are going to have a role to play and an avenue to have their interests and concerns understood. That's what certainty is. Certainty means a place in the process — a marker, an ability to say: "I belong here. I belong on this working landscape. This is my place to go." We need some tools to get there. We need bills like this to get that marker, to be able to hand that chip out, to be able to provide folks with the ability to invest, create, innovate and carry our economy forward across this province.

This issue needs some context, and it needs to be put in the context of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Forest and Range Practices Act, the move to results-based activities, says that you need to be informed by objectives. You need landscape objectives and higher-level objectives on the land base in order to achieve your goals, in order to act appropriately on the land base. We need the tools to get there. You need that high-level plan, that high-level filter, because below it, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, his staff, industry, communities and other interests have got to make considerable progress over the next few years on something called landscape-level planning. That's where you talk about visuals. That's where we talk about old-growth retention, about critical habitat, about riparian zones — all of those things.

We need to build into this. This act gives us those tools to get us to that place inside the regulatory world, inside that results-based world where we're actually empowering professionals — the professional foresters, the professional biologists, the professional agrologists and the professional engineers — to innovate on the land base. This is the context it provides. We need this detailed work done. We need it done because we've got to go find new markets; we've got to develop new products; we've got to get out in the world and sell what we do to the world. In this province we do forestry, tourism, aquaculture and mining better than any other place in the world, and we need to celebrate that and take it into these new marketplaces.

You can't go to these new marketplaces anymore unless you've got your homework done and you've behaved on the land base, because the markets won't want you. This isn't smoke and mirrors; this isn't some sort of fantasy. This is the hard work we need to make sure we can find a place in the world economy with our products. That includes our tourism products, our forest products and our aquaculture products.

This is interesting stuff. It's a piece; it's one part. It's a layer; it's an important layer. It helps us focus; it helps us crystallize; it helps us move forward; it helps us manage change. It's not done in secret. I was involved in those land use planning processes. For the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say this is all about secrecy is absurd. I think they hold the record for last-minute land use deals truncated and done secretly at the cabinet table. It's amazing that she has the effrontery to stand up and say something like that.

"The cart before the horse." That's a crazy, outdated analogy — should probably move a little past the cart-and-horse thinking that so defines their policies and their approach to buggy whips and other really important kinds of things they want to invent for the economy. What is she really talking about? She's really talking about doing nothing — exactly what they did for ten years and allowed us to do for ten years on the land base. Nothing.

This bill is part of the process that this government is putting forward to move this province into the twenty-first century, to move it into the future, to help us find those new marketplaces, to help us secure

where we are in this world economy as a resource producer, as a product producer.

It's crazy to listen to what they have to say. This is important stuff. It has meaning for those folks that I represent who go out and work every day. Those are the people that matter. It's important for those folks that work in downtown Vancouver, that work in Port Moody, that work in Kelowna, that work in Courtenay, that work in Victoria. It's important for them to understand that we've got a lot of progress to make and that this is a piece of what we're doing.

J. Bray: I am very pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill 46. It's interesting. When one gets elected, one runs on a platform, but then one is confronted with all sorts of opinions that one gets throughout the course of their term in office. I must say that this fall, the Land Amendment Act, 2003, Bill 46, has certainly been something that I have heard a lot about from my constituents.

One of my roles as an MLA is to give voice to those issues, to work on behalf of my constituents — not to agree or disagree, not to only deal with those I agree with and think are right, but in fact the broad spectrum of constituents who contact my office. On the other hand, I have a commitment to fulfil the promises I made during an election. That, too, is a reality that I face.

Among the many other commitments we made in the New Era document, I also made a commitment with respect to the working forest, and I would just like to reiterate what that commitment was. It was — and I quote from the new-era campaign platform: "Establish a working forest land base, to provide greater stability for working families and to enhance long-term forestry management and planning." I ran on a commitment, among other things, to deal with the working forest. When I have contact with my constituents, my role is to bring those issues forward and also to make sure their concerns are addressed in the legislation in debates and in committee stage. I really appreciate the opportunity to do that here.

I'd also like to say that I really appreciate the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's patience in dealing with me on this topic several times. As I've been learning about this bill and learning about the working forest and learning about some of the technical aspects of this bill, I've had to meet with him several times. I appreciate his patience in that and that of his staff, who have also provided me with briefings on this bill and how all of this works. It has certainly made my job a lot easier, and I appreciate that.

I want to talk about a few different issues, and then I'll certainly have more to say in committee stage when we deal with specific issues. There were a lot of general concerns expressed to me over the last several months that came into my office from constituents, which were sort of blanket concerns about Bill 46 or the working forest. They sort of said: "We just don't like it, so we want you to vote against it." I would then reply back and thank the individuals for their feedback, but I would ask them to perhaps be a bit more specific. Were there particular areas in the bill that concerned them, or the concept? Were there questions that they had? If I don't engage in conversation in contact with constituents, then I can't really represent their issues.

We had lots of exchanges over the last several months, and they expressed several concerns to me. I've studied this bill very closely, more than I do most pieces of legislation, because it has had such an impact in my riding.

Let me first of all address what I've learned, in my own urban terms, about what Bill 46 will do. There's been a lot of talk in this chamber during the debate about land use plans — LRMPs, land and resource management plans. That's the process whereby areas of the province have certain designations on what can and can't happen. Logging, mining, conservation, recreation, protected areas, parks, ecotourism — you name it.

One of the problems that has happened is that once that process is complete, there is no form to that LRMP. There is no actual ability for anybody to make decisions. Well, okay, there's supposed to be some forestry, but where shall that forestry take place? There's some mining, but where shall that mining take place? Conservation — where should that take place? How much? What's the ratio? What are the percentages? Although those plans were completed and the communities, first nations and professionals were all involved in the development of that, once it was finished, there was no ability for people to make any decisions. Okay, now how do we move forward?

Access to land was inhibited, not stopped — not because you couldn't do it, but no one knew how to make the decisions. What Bill 46 does is provide the eye down on top of that land use plan and provides the target that says: "Well, if forestry is allowed, here's how much forestry will occur." That's the certainty many members have talked about. It is to actually set those targets so that people know how much of any activity is going to happen. It also makes it clear when there are, in fact, going to be several uses for a particular area in that land use.

That's the certainty it provides. It doesn't allow for any more logging than would have happened before Bill 46. When we said we're going to log an area, it allows for the investment and the certainty to occur. When we said we're going to have tourism, it allows certainty that that's actually going to occur. Everybody knows how much and where, and the investment can happen. It actually makes the decisions that implement the land use plan that the local communities dealt with. That's the critical part that I have come to understand of what Bill 46 actually does.

I read a speech that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management gave in Prince George, where he talked about some people's concern that "working forest" was actually a very limited title to what we're trying to achieve. I think that's actually a correct analysis. When we say there's going to be conservation, we need

to actually say how much conservation is going to take place so everybody knows. Somebody has to make that decision.

What I've learned about Bill 46 is that it actually brings to force, brings to life and manages the land use plans that people have already decided. That's what Bill 46 does. The other thing I've learned about Bill 46 is that it actually doesn't change how tenures are given to companies, how leases are provided. Some of those other mechanisms of the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Energy and Mines or Land and Water B.C. or the other agencies deal with how you access the land. It only helps to give forest and land use managements we've decided we're going to access the land….

Companies still must go through the normal tenuring process, the normal lease processes, follow the various regulations around environmental protection and other sorts. It doesn't actually change what will happen on the land base. That's a critical thing that a lot of my constituents are concerned about.

There is another point that came back from many of my constituents. It was a concern about the selling off of forest lands — that working forests translated into privatization of forest lands for big companies to come in, log and then leave. Perhaps the most critical feature I learned on the technical side of this bill is that Bill 46 does not change the Land Act and section 23. I'd like to just read what section 23 in the Land Act actually says. It says: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act." In other words, not only is the working forest not for sale; it can't be for sale. Bill 46 does not touch that section. That certainly gave me great comfort, and I think it will give many of my constituents who are concerned about that — and rightly so concerned about it — comfort to know that in fact the law doesn't change in that respect. They can't privatize timberlands for forest companies.

The other thing is that in section 93.6(1) of Bill 46, there is the opportunity that decisions made under this bill will be available to the public for review, for comment, for input. That's another critical aspect of concerns people had expressed to me — that this will all be done somewhere in secret. In fact, it will be done publicly. It will be dealt with in open cabinet, and there will be the opportunity for communities to be involved on those smaller decisions in their area to actually, as a result of this act, have more input than they ever had before.

Once the land use plan happened, it sort of went away, and there was no ability for people to really be involved in the more detailed decision-making. This act will actually allow that to happen so communities can have more input.

Those are a couple of the major things that I've learned in my study of this bill. It enables decisions to be made in specific terms that were already arrived at in the land use plans — that's good. It does not change the privatization in any way of forest lands — that's good — and it adds another layer, another opportunity of public input on specific decisions.

As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, there's something else I've learned that really is one of the biggest lessons I'll take from this job at the end of the day. In travelling around the province four times in the last two years and being in all the different communities — large and small — outside of the southwestern part of this province, I've seen just how important the land base is to communities. The reality is that a town like Prince Rupert — just to pick it out of the air — is not going to be the high-tech sector of British Columbia in the next five years. It is not going to be the largest manufacturing centre of widgets in the next five years. The reality is that communities throughout this province that were built on natural resource economies rely on natural resource economies just to survive.

I think many of my constituents are concerned about small communities and rural life. What we have to make is the connection. Those families trying to raise their families, trying to pay their rent, trying to manage a little hobby farm and work in forestry or work in mining or work in aquaculture must have access to the land base to develop natural resources. There is a frustration in many parts of the province that large communities like Victoria and Vancouver — which have essentially been clearcut and cemented, which have smog problems, which have those types of environmental issues that large communities have — still feel they should talk about other sectors of the province and tell them what they can and can't do.

What they're really doing is killing the dreams of families — not because that's what they want to do. They have a legitimate concern about the future of our province, but we must find the balance for the sake of small-town British Columbia. For the sake of the interior, for the heartlands, we must find a balance, or else those towns will die and those families will lose their homes. The devastation that happened in Barriere and Louis Creek is what can happen if the access to land is choked off. As legislators, it's our responsibility to find that balance, to ensure that we can serve appropriately, that we use environmental standards that are second to none in the world to protect public lands for future generations.

I support that wholeheartedly, but I can't look at those families in the face, and those communities, as they struggle to let their kids go to hockey camp and to have a wonderful childhood when they're struggling to pay the bills. I look for opportunities where we can find that balance through this chamber. I think Bill 46 does that.

There still are questions my constituents have. There are still issues that they're asking me to raise in committee stage with the minister to get assurances for their concerns, so I will be raising some issues in committee that deal with areas around control of the land base, any changes in logging practices, some questions

around how the actual targets will be set within the land use plan — what the process is, what that means, what it will look like and how cabinet decisions are going to be made. I think my constituents have a concern about that process, and they want to learn more about it.

I look forward to committee stage to further explore these issues on behalf of my constituents. I appreciate the opportunity to bring the views of my constituents forward and to be able to debate Bill 46, and I look forward to the next stage.

M. Hunter: Here we are talking about land. In many societies in this world, people don't talk about it; they actually fight wars over it. Some of our forefathers, I'm sure, did the same. I make that observation because I think that this is a very important bill for a variety of reasons. It's important to me because, like many other members, I have had constituents come to me and say: "What are you doing? What does this bill mean?" They have indicated some concerns. I wanted to speak to the bill because I want to reflect those concerns and to address them.

I listened very carefully to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition on this bill. She made all kinds of comments about how this was introducing secrecy and wondered why the member for Okanagan-Vernon was so sure, and, you know, he must know something she doesn't. But she's quite able to stand in this place and tell us…. Two things she told us this afternoon were that this is going to introduce a hierarchy of use on our land base, that forests will be at the top and that other uses will be at the bottom. She alleged that the AAC, the annual allowable cut in our forests, was going to be increased to unsustainable levels because of this piece of legislation. It's quite all right for her to be wrong; it's not okay for somebody else to have an opinion.

I have a document that, actually, I think the Leader of the Opposition should look at. It's published by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and it's entitled Managing B.C.'s Land and Resources for the Benefit of all British Columbians. I would refer this document to her so that she can speak a little more intelligently on Bill 46 at other stages of the debate. To me, her intervention kind of characterized the debate that's been going on in public around this bill. The debate seems to be based on a series of misunderstandings, perhaps distortions, about what this bill actually does.

There's been a lot of talk about the working forest. You know, the fact is that the working forest initiative is one that I, as a member of the governing party, undertook to achieve. This bill certainly moves us in that direction, but it does a lot more than set up the working forest as we had promised we would do.

I think we need to be clear — and I want to be clear, as other members have been — about what this bill does and what it doesn't do. It does not — does not — provide for privatization of Crown land, of publicly owned land in this province. It does not amend section 23 of the Land Act. That section prohibits the disposition of timbered Crown land except in exceptional circumstances. This bill does not change a longstanding provision in the Land Act of this province, and it does not provide for privatization of publicly owned land and resources.

What the bill does do — and I think it's important that I, like others, stress this — is provide a much-needed framework for land use designations and decisions. I almost feel sorry that I have to say this, but I do. The need for certainty which has been absent for so long in British Columbia over the land base — over what you can do and what you can't and where you can do it and where you can't — is paramount.

The member for North Island made, I think, a key point. This is not certainty about how you can cut trees or how you can mine rocks. This is certainty about the process by which your activity will be permitted and how it will be permitted. The other legislation that we debated in this House — for example, on forestry, the Forest and Range Practices Act amongst others — are the pieces of legislation that dictate the methods and the rules and regulations that will be required for you to follow.

There is a lot of anxiety in the community that somehow this bill is going to allow for strip mining and clearcutting. It just is not true. I have been very careful in my analysis of this bill, as I have in the analysis of other bills that do dictate how you do what you do. I am very satisfied that we are moving into a regime where we are going to provide certainty to investors and the people of this province over not only what goes on and where it can go on but also how it can go on.

I, like the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, serve on the legislative committee on Finance and Government Services. I heard a presentation just a week ago in Burnaby from a very respected organization and person, the Hon. John Fraser, on behalf of the Pacific Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. The submission talked about how changing and reducing government expenditures in the forest was somehow affecting fish habitat. I have to say that I think when you look at these issues, you've got to look at the whole issue. You've got to look at what our forest tenure holders and private land owners are doing. I think in 2003 and moving forward, what is going on in the forest land base today is far superior to what it ever was and, in fact, equals the kind of conservation commitment that we see from various parts of the fishing industry in this province. We are moving ahead. We have, I think, the techniques and the methodology developing. This is another piece in the puzzle of providing certainty over our land base.

We have, without question, been tied up in uncertainty for far too long. Land use certainty is critical to creating new jobs and new opportunities in communi-

Sound land use planning builds certainty by determining what land needs to be protected and what economic activities can take place on the balance of B.C.'s resource-rich land base. Effective land use designations recognize all uses. This is a very important point because, again, we've heard accusations from the Leader of the Opposition that the annual allowable cut is going to be increased to unsustainable levels. Exclusive land use is what she talked about. Effective land use designations, for which this bill provides, recognize all uses including oil and gas, including mining, including tourism, including recreation and agriculture, and probably a whole bunch of other activities that don't come to mind right now.

The message we have to create for investors in this place — because investment from inside and from outside British Columbia is what is going to move us forward in our path of economic regeneration — needs to change from what it's been. What it's been is: "Oh, Mr. Investor, thanks for your call. Just hang on for three months while I figure out how I'm going to stop you." That's what has happened in this province. We need to move that message to: "Hello, Mr. Investor, here's how we can help you to create wealth and jobs for families in British Columbia." This bill helps us move in that direction. It is a direction which is important, and it's important that we move more quickly down that road with the kind of care and the kind of processes that Bill 46 puts into place.

The bill gives to cabinet the responsibility to designate Crown lands for specific purposes. It empowers the cabinet to designate and set objectives for the use of Crown land, and I think it promises to unlock the deadlock that has throttled the economy of the vast heartlands of this province for many, many years.

This bill helps us in our objectives as a government of ensuring long-term land use certainty that will enable communities, conservation groups, environmental groups, first nations, industry and recreational users to coexist for the benefit of us all. It improves access to land because it confirms or puts in place a process that will enable us to confirm what land and resources are available for development with the completion of those remaining land use plans that are still out there. That's another point I want to make. This bill respects the work that has gone on and is going on with respect to the development of land use plans in this province — not the other way around. It does not supersede them. It respects those processes and intends to build on them.

This bill helps us in that objective by working with first nations, engaging in consultation and accommodation. First nations are part of the process that will make Bill 46 work. We are, through this bill, ensuring tenure security. Without that security or certainty — whatever you want to call it — again, attracting new investment to this province is a long and difficult road. If we need any evidence for that, we only have to look at the ten years of the last government.

This bill, by creating the kind of certainty we need on the land base, enhances our business climate. We're working on that in many, many ways, and I'm not going to bore you or the rest of the members of this House by talking again about the tax cuts that we've introduced, both personal and business. They have had a huge positive impact. The financial reforms, the fiscal responsibilities made a huge difference to the attractiveness of B.C., but there's more we have to do. Land use certainty — time after time, when you talk to people in business — is a key and vital change that we must make.

Others have spoken about the way this is going to help open up new markets. Again, my colleague the member for North Island was very eloquent in talking about how this isn't an option. You must do these kinds of things if you want your products to be successfully marketed in places around the world that demand the kind of standards and processes that this bill brings forward.

A couple more points I want to make. It's important that, again, we recognize the respect this bill provides for all those people who come from a wide variety of backgrounds, a wide variety of interests and a wide variety of visions — people who have contributed to the process of land use planning for a long time. To them I say that this bill provides a process that protects existing use designations of Crown land in other acts. I guess, to put it in the most simple way, parks remain parks. That's the message in this bill. I think this is good. It's progressive. I think we need to congratulate the minister on this.

I think it's important that we understand that conservation targets — to move to the idea of the working forest; it's just one of the benefits we're going to have from this bill — that people are concerned about and that we're concerned about are part of the working forest.

The working forest does not mean there is a timber priority in place on all Crown lands. It means we are focusing our attention on land designation and providing for multiple use. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong when she says this bill is going to lead to exclusive use where nothing else can happen on forest land or on mining tenures. It just isn't true, and I think she's misleading people by suggesting that, if she is. Multiple use and room for multiple use of Crown land is key to the development of the province.

The forest industry, I know, is one that is looking forward to the implementation of this bill, because we did make the promise of a working forest. The forest industry in my community remains of huge importance, and, of course, across the province it's a key to our future economic fortunes. I suppose I could argue that because much of the forest land in my region is owned privately, the security of the land base is of less interest than it is elsewhere in the province. But that would not be true, because in my constituency the forest industry in the rest of the province — certainly in coastal British Columbia — has a huge impact on the fortunes of the industry located in Nanaimo.

That industry needs this security. My constituents need this security. I think this bill moves us forward in that direction, and I am pleased to support it. Thank you for this opportunity to give my views on this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 46. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management closes the debate.

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues who have stood up this afternoon in support of this important bill, of this important initiative that our government is moving forward with. I thank them for their scrutiny of the bill. I thank them for their serious contributions and for the work they've done.

This bill is actually about providing certainty on the land base. Certainty on the land base is going to provide certainty for communities and the people who live in those communities around the province of British Columbia. It's also about balance. We need to bring that balance into focus between the economy, the environment and the communities that are affected.

We also heard from the Leader of the Opposition the same tired, old thinking that wants to pit one community against another, that wants to pit one user of the land base against another, instead of looking at how we can work together on the land base for the good of everyone in the province so that we can bring stability to it so that our markets will be open and so that our companies and the people who work in those companies will actually have places to sell the products, whether those are forestry products, mining and the exploration industry that's so important to British Columbia, agriculture, aquaculture, tourism — all of those activities that take place on the land base.

We, on the other hand, have new thinking for a new era in British Columbia. We promised that. The Premier promised that in the campaign. The Premier is leading that new thinking to provide certainty on the land base.

The Leader of the Opposition also made a statement which is incorrect. I want to correct that on the record. She said: "Land use decisions are not going to be done in open cabinet." I want to assure the House and, indeed, every British Columbian that any decision on land use will be taken in open cabinet. We committed to that. The Premier committed to that in the campaign. It was part of our campaign, and we have fulfilled that. Every single land use decision is taken in open cabinet, because it's important for the public of British Columbia to know what decisions are being taken in regard to land use. We've made the commitment to do those in open cabinet, and we will continue to do that. Any subsequent order-in-council will simply implement those decisions.

The Leader of the Opposition also quoted some news reports that 97 percent of the people are against what we're doing. There couldn't be anything further from the truth. Even one of the individuals from WC2 has admitted that they had a campaign on e-mail against this legislation. They used the excuse that it was selling off Crown land, and nothing could be further from the truth.

We accepted that consultation through the process that we did. We actually listened to the replies that came in, and we've actually addressed those replies. While the Leader of the Opposition talked about people being against this, I want to read into the record people who are in favour of this legislation, communities that are in favour, organizations that are in favour: the district of Campbell River, the heart of forestry on the Island; the city of Cranbrook; the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, thousands of members; IWA Local 2171; the village of Port Alice; the district of Port Hardy; the town of Port McNeill; the regional district of Mount Waddington; the village of Sayward; the corporation of the village of Cumberland; the city of Courtenay; the village of Tahsis; the Union of B.C. Municipalities; the district of Mission; New Hazelton; the district of 100 Mile House; the city of Revelstoke; the district of Squamish; the Canada West Ski Areas Association; the Association of Professional Engineers; Coast Forest and Lumber Association; the Cariboo Communities Coalition.

Does this sound to anyone listening like the majority of British Columbians are against this legislation? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker.

I will go on. Letters of support from Riverside Forest Products and their employees, TimberWest, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Interfor, Western Forest Products Ltd., Weldwood of Canada Ltd., Doman Industries Ltd., Weyerhaeuser Canada, Marine Link Transportation Ltd.

Then we have support from the Council of Resource Communities. We've heard a lot of speeches this afternoon from our side of the House about the importance of rural B.C., the heartland of this province where the natural resources are, where the natural resources are extracted and processed, and how they help pay for health care and education and advanced education and the social services that our province provides.

The Council of Resource Communities declares support for the working forest initiative — 38 communities totalling almost 400,000 people. Port McNeill mayor Gerry Furney is the co-chair. The Council of Resource Communities' other committee members are Mayor Donna Barnett of 100 Mile House, Mayor Herb Pond of Prince Rupert, Mayor Ross Priest of Cranbrook and Mayor Colin Kinsley of Prince George. Those five mayors represent the Council of Resource Communities' 38 communities around the province where the wealth of this province is generated.

The Truck Loggers Association has stated its strong public support for the working forest — over 650 members representing 7,500 employees living and working in the forests of coastal British Columbia. Where are these naysayers? We've got solid community support, solid worker support from workers from

around the province. The Council of Forest Industries, COFI, plus their 69 interior member companies have stated their strong public support for the working forest — thousands and thousands of companies and workers. My colleagues have stated very eloquently the purpose of this legislation. I look forward to a debate during committee stage, and I'm sure my colleagues do as well.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 46, Land Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have been informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is on her way to the precinct. She will be here within the next 15 or 20 minutes. I would ask members to remain in the precinct. We will ring the division bells upon her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003

Clerk Assistant: In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 39

Falcon	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	J. Reid	Bruce
Barisoff	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Stephens	Abbott	Chong
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	Visser	Hamilton
Sahota	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 1

	Kwan