Hansard -- Monday, November 3, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 16 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7717

Tributes		7717
	Ken Middleton
	S. Brice

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7717
	Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7718
	Saanich police patrols on Halloween
	S. Orr
	Abbeyfield housing for seniors
	G. Trumper
	Repairs to Highway 3 in Kootenay area
	B. Bennett


Oral Questions		7719
	Privatization and viability of B.C. Rail
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. Reid
	Police services in Vancouver and funding by traffic fine revenue
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Funding for mental health services in Vancouver
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Privatization of B.C. Rail
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. Reid

Petitions		7722
	B. Bennett

Committee of the Whole House		7722
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83) (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. Kwan
	K. Johnston
	R. Nijjar
	R. Hawes
	L. Mayencourt

Reporting of Bills		7745
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)

Third Reading of Bills		7745
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)

Second Reading of Bills		7746
	Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88)
	Hon. S. Hagen
	J. MacPhail
	B. Suffredine
	M. Hunter
	G. Trumper
	B. Bennett
	K. Stewart
	T. Christensen
	B. Belsey
	R. Visser
	D. MacKay
	J. Les
	B. Penner
	J. Bray
	P. Bell
	Hon. S. Hagen

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge 16 second- and third-year political science students from Linfield College in McMinnville, Oregon, which is just south of Portland and one of the oldest colleges on the Pacific coast. They're here with their professor, Dr. Dawn Nowacki. They met this morning with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the Leader of the Opposition and myself as they further their studies on British Columbia's political system. I certainly wish them luck. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: Today we are joined by a resident of White Rock, someone known to all of us. If you tuned into 690 on your AM dial this morning, you would have heard he wasn't there. That's because he's here on what he calls a fishing trip. I hope all members of the Legislature would make Rick Cluff — known to many British Columbians through his good work on the radio — very welcome.

S. Brice: I would like to make both an announcement and an introduction. On a sad note, I'd like to advise the House of the death of Ken Middleton. Ken worked for Saanich for 45 years and in his retirement was the special events coordinator. In June of 1992 he was made a freeman of the municipality of Saanich, and a plaza was dedicated in his honour. He leaves his wife, Evelyn, and five children. Ken will be remembered as a sterling example of citizenship and selfless dedication to our community.

S. Brice: On a happier note, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce 16 grade 11 students visiting from Pacific Christian School in my constituency of Saanich South. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Reems, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I have in the gallery today two very dear friends of mine, David and Frauke Owen. David has been a real great support to me. He has been someone that's gone out and campaigned with me. Regularly we have breakfast together so that he can tell me what our government should do. I would ask that the House please make them both feel very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have a special guest visiting today from Ottawa: Carole Norton, our daughter-in-law. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining Act. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act allows cabinet, by a designation, to assign special status to projects deemed to be significant and to have broad benefits for the economic, social or environmental well-being of British Columbia.

There have long been concerns from investors and local governments about the lack of timeliness in obtaining project approval decisions in British Columbia. In fact, our province has garnered a reputation as having one of the most difficult and lengthy approval processes for major projects in North America. Inefficient review and approval processes result in many potential investments and investors waiting far too long for decisions from government. Long delays are often caused by conflicting requirements from multiple ministries and approval authorities. This particularly affects the viability of projects sponsored by local governments and the provincial government that seek key partnerships with the private sector.

Designation under this act will ensure that project reviews and approvals are addressed within reasonable time frames and that all parties involved can recognize and address potential problems in a way that is positive and cooperative. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act creates a framework that encourages project proponents and all levels of government to place a discipline on themselves to work together to head off problems before they arise. The act does not in any way change provincial or federal environmental, health or safety standards associated with the development or operation of a project.

This legislation is consistent with government's direction to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden for British Columbians and follows through on the commitment to create a strong and vibrant provincial economy. Bill 75 creates an innovative framework for dialogue and cooperation on projects that are in the best interests of all British Columbians, and it ensures that project reviews and related activities for significant projects are carried out in a manner that is timely and efficient.

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 75 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. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

You'll recall that on November the 25, 2002, government's new energy plan was released. There are four pillars in that energy plan: first, low electricity rates and public ownership — and I want to emphasize the public ownership as there seem to be some people that don't understand public ownership; second, securing reliable supply; third, more private sector opportunities; and fourth, environmental responsibility.

The energy plan reflects the desire of British Columbians to retain public ownership of B.C. Hydro's core assets and the benefits they provide in securing a reliable, low-cost source of energy for the province. Low electricity rates make B.C. an attractive place to raise a family and invest in. Low electricity rates help B.C. businesses and new investors compete in an increasingly global economy. The energy plan's first policy action is a legislative heritage contract to preserve B.C.'s low-cost energy advantage. It is my honour to introduce enabling legislation to create the regulatory framework to establish the heritage contract.

This act fully protects public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and distribution assets. With this act the investment that B.C. residents have made in B.C. Hydro continues. Also included in the bill is the repeal of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act to eliminate outdated restrictions imposed on tariffs and gas.

The new act ensures that B.C. Hydro's assets remain in public hands so that British Columbians continue to enjoy electricity rates among the lowest in North America. 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 85 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.

R. Harris: I noticed in the gallery today…. I can't see them all, but we have a significant portion, if not all, of the North Central Municipal Association. I would like the House to please make them welcome, because they're down here for the next couple of days having meetings. They're going to be meeting with the northern caucus later this week to talk about a lot of the things that are going on in the north and, in fact, draft some strategy for how we actually improve everybody's lives. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

S. Orr: I have the privilege of serving two municipalities. Half of my riding is in Victoria, and the other half is in Saanich. At Halloween last year I went out with the Victoria police, and this year I went out with the Saanich police.

Halloween can be great fun for small children, but when they go home, it seems a lot of devils come out and all hell breaks loose. At the Saanich police department it was all hands on deck — a large contingency of police officers, auxiliaries, detectives, a police board member, plus the police chief Derek Egan and even the mayor himself, Frank Leonard. What a night — over 200 calls.

Saanich has the largest population of youth, and of course, UVic is in Saanich, which has a student population base of at least 20,000 students. We were driving from one out-of-control party to another, and of course, with the consumption of booze and drugs they get out of control very quickly.

Although the police were incredibly organized, Saanich's sheer size makes for a lot of driving in responding to these hundreds of calls. The police moved swiftly, efficiently and respectfully through a very cold night, confiscating everything from booze to illegal drugs and fireworks — but possibly the most dangerous of all, homemade fireworks.

It was an exhausting evening and night for the Saanich police, but they did an exceptional job. The citizens of Saanich and Victoria-Hillside can be proud and confident that their safety and issues relating to policing are well taken care of. They are in good hands. Well done, Saanich police.

G. Trumper: As we seek to find appropriate housing for seniors as the population ages, non-profit or-

ganizations will play an enormous role in helping us to meet the needs. While there are a number of organizations across the province that assist with seniors housing, today I would like to talk about Abbeyfield.

Abbeyfield is a charity that builds non-profit housing for seniors. It is responding to the growing needs of seniors who are unable to live alone but do not need the services of a home for the aged or a nursing home. Abbeyfield offers a warm, family-style house and a balance between privacy and companionship, security and independence, combined with a special caring element provided by dedicated volunteers and the consistency of single-house management style.

Abbeyfield was the name of a street in Bermondsey, London, England, where in 1956 the first Abbeyfield House was established. Today there are Abbeyfield societies in 14 countries around the world. In Canada there are 27 Abbeyfield Houses, 22 of those located in British Columbia.

The Abbeyfield Houses Alberni Valley Society is a non-profit organization that began by looking for a solution to the valley's seniors housing issues in 1986 and became incorporated in 1995. When the old West Coast Hospital was torn down, the city of Port Alberni agreed to lease the extended care unit to the Abbeyfield Society. Today it provides housing to 18 seniors in the Alberni Valley. Each resident has a self-contained unit and receives an appropriate level of care and services.

Abbeyfield's guiding principles clearly demonstrate the excellence of the support and care philosophy that provides a safe and secure housing option for seniors who need some assistance or who were just lonely living on their own. I want to congratulate all those who worked so hard to open the doors of Alberni Abbeyfield seniors residence.

B. Bennett: Last year at about this time — in fact, on September 26 of last year — there was a horrible, tragic automobile accident in my riding on a section of Highway 3 that we know as Steamboat Hill. That accident was covered by BCTV. It was a horrible thing to look at on television. There was a gas truck involved, and there was a big, burning flame. Unfortunately, a young couple from Fernie lost their lives in that accident, leaving young children behind. As a result of that, hundreds of my constituents put together a petition that I'll ask to have tabled later this afternoon.

What I want to say now is that as a result of our Minister of Transportation and as a result of the Premier and as a result of the policies we've put forward in this government, even under some very challenging times within the context of balancing our budget, we have been able, as a government, to fix that corner. The construction to fix Steamboat Hill, to make that a safe place for people to drive, is happening today. Now, this corner has been there for 20 years. For 20 years the people of the East Kootenay have been asking that this corner be fixed. I'm proud to say that as of a week ago, construction started. We are now fixing Steamboat Hill so it will be safe for people to use Highway 3 in that area.

M. Hunter: I want to welcome and ask the House to help me welcome 12 grade 11 ESL students from Malaspina College in Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr. Butler, and two accompanying adults. Will you please help me welcome these folks.

J. MacPhail: Let me put on record a letter from Ron East, a well-known Liberal activist in Prince George. I quote from him: "Mr. Premier, you promised you would not sell B.C. Rail, and we voted for you because we believed in you. No sooner were you elected than you started your campaign to deceive us into believing our rail company is a money-loser. Shame on you."

Can the Minister of Transportation tell us why her party's own supporters are saying her government is deceiving them into believing B.C. Rail is a money-loser?

Hon. J. Reid: B.C. Rail is a vital transportation service for the north of this province. It's vital for the industries that are served by it. Transportation is one of their highest costs. We have industries from the north who take their product and put it on trucks and ship it into other provinces to put on rail. We have industries in the north of this province which have been saying that the service isn't sufficient for B.C. Rail because the cars aren't available. We have industries in the north of this province which have been complaining for many, many years that the operations of B.C. Rail are hindering their ability to be competitive.

We've listened to that; we've listened to the communities that have concerns about the sustainability. We have looked at the public good that needs to be protected, which is the continued public ownership of the track, of the right-of-way and of the railbed, and we are looking for an operating partner for sustainability for long-term good for the communities and the industries of the north.

J. MacPhail: One has to listen very carefully to the new message box. It's true; the Minister of Transporta-

tion today didn't call it a money-loser. She's challenging their competitiveness, though.

I guess the minister hasn't seen the new document. Let me just tell the minister about this. She can say anything her spin doctors tell her to, but what they're doing is privatizing a B.C. Rail company that not only is profitable but is highly competitive.

J. MacPhail: …showing the year-to-date financial results for B.C. Rail. The new report says that the profit margins for regional carriers remain above Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and any other class of railways, with B.C. Rail being the highest in the industry for their quarter profits and their year-to-date profits.

Again to the Minister of Transportation: why is she saying that B.C. Rail is not competitive and is not efficient when, indeed, they have the highest productivity rate amongst all rail lines and they are the first rail line to have an operating margin of below 70 percent — better than any other rail company in North America? Why is she not telling that aspect of a rail line?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm very pleased the member has been able to recognize that under this government's leadership, B.C. Rail has taken a very aggressive approach on the freight rail side. We have concentrated on that part of the operation to cut the bleeding that was taking place. That was very difficult. There are still opportunities.

I was in Prince George on Friday this past week, and at that time the people were saying that this needs to be sustainable in the long term. They said: "You know, we've got double shifts on the mills here. This isn't going to last. We have to make sure, with the variable trends in the forest industry and without the coal production for B.C. Rail, that we have sustainability in the long term." For that reason we're looking at the long-term picture, and we're going to make sure there is an operator there who's going to be able to run that operation for the long term.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't the bar shifting every single time this minister's confronted with a new report about how well B.C. Rail is doing. We now know it's profitable; we now know it's competitive. She stands up with this new information and says: "Oh, but we're worried we can't sustain it." What do they do? What does this government do? A profitable, competitive publicly owned railway — and she wants to sell it off.

We know that's not in her message box. According to this report that we've obtained just this morning…

J. MacPhail: …B.C. Rail has the highest profit margin of all regional carriers. In this year's third quarter alone B.C. Rail made a $21 million profit, and that's in American funds. In fact, they've got the highest year-to-date profits of any rail line.

If the minister pushes ahead with her plans to sell B.C. Rail, British Columbians are going to lose a company that is making big profits and that is completely and most competitive. Again to the minister: given all this good news about B.C. Rail, why is she breaking a promise and selling one of North America's best-performing rail companies? Why is she breaking the promise?

Hon. J. Reid: It is a fact that B.C. Rail has a debt of over $500 million. It is a fact that that is part of….

Hon. J. Reid: If this member understood business, if this member understood how to read a balance sheet, if this member understood….

Hon. J. Reid: If this member understood the necessity of being able to sustain and what that means, and what investment is required….

Hon. J. Reid: If this member understood anything about the economy of the north and what's going on in the forest industry right now, this member would understand what sustainability means in the long term. Taking on an operating partner for B.C. Rail is the very best move to provide that sustainability, to make sure

that cars are available, to change technologies to just-in-time delivery. Once again this member thinks that government is better at running businesses, but I would suggest the customers and communities will be better served by the operating partner.

J. Kwan: Over the weekend Inspector Jones of the Vancouver police said: "The population has doubled, the number of bars has grown, and bars are now allowed to stay open until 4 a.m., yet the number of police officers has remained the same."

During the election the Liberals promised a transfer of 75 percent of traffic fines to municipalities for increased policing. That promise wasn't kept in the 2001 budget, in the 2002 budget, in the 2003 budget, and apparently it won't be kept in the 2004 budget. That's over $200 million that should be going to increased policing.

The people living in the West End aren't going to be fooled by yet another phony election promise in '05. Will the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services deliver on the promise now so that the people in the West End can have the policing that they need today?

Hon. G. Abbott: We certainly will be fulfilling that election promise, no question about it. What we may not be able to undo is the outright breach back in 1996 — I think this member may remember it — of the Local Government Grants Act that was undertaken by this government. Mr. Speaker, $113 million was cut unilaterally and arbitrarily by the NDP government straight out of the coffers of local government in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: They didn't offer the modicum of respect of even advising the municipalities before they undertook the breach of their own Local Government Grants Act.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Local Government Grants Act that the NDP brought in, which was going to provide stability, certainty, predictability — all of these fine things, that Local Government Grants Act…. One day the NDP got up in the Legislature and breached it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the difference between that government and this government is that we actually keep our promises.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that the Leader of the Opposition is using up your time in question period. You have a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: The people in the West End want the policing money now, not just before the election. Inspector Jones also said there is a growing underclass in the West End who can't get access to much-needed facilities for the mentally ill, and that's contributing to an increase in crime.

On Thursday the provincial health services authority announced further cuts to mental health programs, including psychiatric services. To the Minister of State for Mental Health — and please spare me, minister, and spare the mental health patients the spin provided in your binder that you're looking for. It will not have the answer, so just answer this question.

Can he explain why, with crime on the increase, he's closing psychiatric programs for transient, multi-problem and vulnerable British Columbians and forcing those patients onto the street?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, let me give them a history lesson for the mental health funding. In the year 2000-01…

Hon. G. Cheema: …funding for mental health and addiction services totalled only $855 million. In 2001-02 funding was $925 million. In 2002-03 funding was $1 billion. In 2003-04 funding is projected to be $1.067 billion. That is an increase of $212 million. The NDP broke their promises on mental health. We are fulfilling our promises on mental health.

P. Nettleton: Opposition to the government's proposed sale of B.C. Rail is an issue that has transcended political affiliation. The leader of the B.C. Green Party, Adriane Carr, has requested through the Speaker's office that I ask the following question of the Minister of Transportation.

It has been proven that B.C. Rail produces profits for B.C. taxpayers and stimulates economic growth in rural B.C., generating close to $30 million worth of business a year in Prince George alone. In New Zealand privatizing public rail resulted in loss of rural rail services and the decline of many rural communities. In

light of these and other facts that have surfaced, as well as the groundswell of public opposition to the sale of B.C. Rail, does the minister see any similarity between B.C. Rail and the Coquihalla situation? Is the government monitoring or paying any heed to the rising public sentiment in their deliberations of this issue, and could the minister tell the people of B.C. what the government's response is to this strident public outcry?

Hon. J. Reid: The member knows, as I believe he's sharing with us, the importance of B.C. Rail to the northern communities. We have talked about the importance to industries, we have talked about the importance of sustainability, and we have talked about preserving the public good, which is a long-term ownership of B.C. Rail — of the railbed, of the right-of-way, of the tracks — to be able to know that it's going to be there for the future.

We believe this approach is going to provide that confidence moving forward. It will provide a better service to the industries that depend on B.C. Rail, and it's going to provide a better assurance to the taxpayer that they're not going to have to write down another billion dollars' worth of debt in the future for B.C. Rail.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 83; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell us what the history is, requiring clause 2.

Hon. K. Falcon: What clause 2 does is provide some explanatory parameters around the definitions that were provided in the original trust agreement of 1889, of course. It stated, to paraphrase, that it was for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Vancouver. What this does, in fact, is add flesh to the bones of that original 1889 definition and provides an update of the activities that have evolved over the last 100-plus years on the site.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think, over time, the reality is that we're looking at a document that's over 100 years old. As I say, the activities on the site evolved over that 100-plus years. What this does is actually provide some parameters around what level of activities have taken place over those 100 years and recognize the reality of what's taking place on the ground right now on those Hastings Park Trust lands.

J. MacPhail: That wasn't my question. Was there some challenge to the trust, or was there some impediment to the current trust that the minister felt he needed to include everything up to and including this clause: "to implement security procedures including, without limitation, the restriction or prohibition of access to all or any part of Hastings Park"? What problem is this minister trying to resolve?

Hon. K. Falcon: No problem at all, actually. The member will be happy to know that there is no problem. In fact, what we are doing is ceding to a request from the city of Vancouver staff to make sure we have in there explanatory parameters around the definition of what the use and enjoyment of the lands are. That includes a section that the member read out, which of course is the normal sort of security that has been undertaken on those lands for as long as anyone can remember. All this does is give confirmation to something that, in fact, has been going on for many decades.

J. MacPhail: The minister may be pleased to know that there were lots of people watching the debate in the Legislature on Thursday, who were quite taken aback at his interpretation of the history and of what the community role and, indeed, what my role had been in all of that — were quite taken aback. In fact, mainly they said the minister got it wrong from top to bottom.

Here's the question that they asked: in whose interest is it to interpret an 1889 trust agreement to say that all of these activities have been allowed, when in fact there's also an opportunity to interpret the original trust agreement in a far different fashion to say that the use and enjoyment by the public does not include all of these activities? Who was it — the minister or the city — that drafted this clause?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, the city asked for that clause. I'll say this to the member: I mean, at what point is this member having a challenge in understanding that there's a whole bunch of activities that have been taking place there for well over 100 years?

I believe, if I'm understanding the direction this particular member is going in — I'm not sure, but maybe she can clarify…. Is she suggesting that she

would prefer to have language that would potentially disallow everything that has taken place and has taken place for the last 100 years? Maybe you could be a little more helpful in clarifying what it is you're driving at.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect, that entire executive council bench needs parliamentary procedure training. I find it unbelievable that every single time this minister rises, he talks directly to me not only in a disrespectful way but in an unparliamentary way.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There are only two of us and 75 of this government, and they can learn proper parliamentary procedure. It just goes to show how little some of the executive council knows. So if the member could please go through the Chair in a respectful fashion.

Mr. Chair, it is not up to me to answer the questions of the minister, but here's what I would advise him. Here's what I would have advised him: it is not up to me to say what the community wants and would prefer without asking the community. What this government failed to do was ask the community their wishes at all.

Here's what I did hear back from the community over the weekend. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the community, talked to them on the phone and received substantial feedback. I know that's an unusual concept for Liberal MLAs. Their question was: why did this government decide to interpret an as-yet-unchanged trust in a fashion to include every single action that may have taken place in violation of a trust?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Chair, through to the member, that is the member's interpretation of that. But as I said — and I believe we canvassed this quite extensively in our last conversation — there has been no successful legal challenge to the terms of the 1889 trust. I'm fascinated by her continuing emphasis that there was, when there wasn't. All this does is actually accede to a request from the city of Vancouver to ensure that we include language in the bill transferring responsibility to the city of Vancouver — that, in fact, all the existing uses that are currently taking place there are recognized and identified. That's exactly what we've done.

J. Kwan: Well, the opposition has different information, and this is sent as recently as Monday on the issue around consultation. That's October 27, on Monday. I'm going to put the issues raised by the community on the floor with the minister by quoting this e-mail.

It is signed by Mariken van Nimwegen, the vice-chair, on behalf of the board of directors of the Hastings Park Conservancy.

The issue here around the trust is the notion, historically, of how it was put in place and the spirit behind it and the intent behind it. So what's changed? That's the question. What went wrong with this trust that the minister now feels that he has to bring in legislation to change the entire intent behind the trust?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member will be happy to know that we're not changing the intent at all. In fact, just to respond to a statement the hon. member has made, along with her colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings…. They repeatedly suggest that this is something that apparently has been cooked up in the last few weeks by this provincial government, and I want to emphasize that we have been in conversations and consultations with representatives from the city of Vancouver for almost two years now. I believe the correct number is about 22 months.

What is the purpose of that consultation? Well, the purpose is actually to achieve everything those fine folks who wrote that e-mail are trying to achieve. That is, the city will be engaging in a visioning exercise. What is the purpose of this visioning exercise? Well, the purpose of that visioning exercise, as I understand it, is that they will be allowing a very broad consultative process to take place with all the stakeholders and all the interested groups from across Vancouver and East Vancouver and the west side of Vancouver and whoever else wants to be involved. They will have every opportunity to share their particular belief as to how they would like to see the future of that site, and I think that's a very positive thing.

I also believe it's most consistent that the level of government closest to the people is the level of government that is the most appropriate to engage in that kind of a discussion, and so I welcome that. I think the member should feel some good feeling about the fact that the visioning exercise will be undertaken, and there will be, up till the year 2005, every opportunity afforded for folks to have input into what their particular vision of that site is.

J. Kwan: Well, the issue that the community takes is actually with this government, and it's about this piece of legislation, Bill 83, entitled Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, within which the terms and trust conditions are being altered. That is the issue which the community takes with this government.

When the minister rises up and says he's been consulting for two years and, "Don't worry…." Who from the community did the minister consult with?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said many times before, we engaged in consultation with the appropriate level of government, which is in fact the city government in Vancouver. That is as it should be. It's entirely appropriate. They are the representatives of the people of Vancouver, and we undertook our consultations and negotiations with the appropriate representative of the residents of Vancouver.

J. Kwan: When the minister says he appropriately undertook his consultation with the residents of Vancouver…. Aside from city council, who from the public did this minister or this government consult with? Did they contact the Hastings Park Conservancy, as an example? Were they contacted, and were they consulted about Bill 83?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it is very important to understand this. I believe it would actually be very presumptuous for the province of British Columbia to step over into the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver and start engaging in discussions with groups like the one that was mentioned by the member. I don't believe that is at all the appropriate way to proceed with something like this. What we did over the last 22 months was spend our time discussing and consulting with the elected representatives and the staffers from the city of Vancouver, and that government has given its commitment — very publicly, I might add — that they will be engaging in a broader visioning exercise that will incorporate and allow the opportunity for groups such as the one the member mentioned to have every opportunity to bring forward their vision of that site.

J. Kwan: With the exception that it is this government and this minister who are bringing in legislation that will alter the conditions of the trust that was established in 1889 and that talked about the intent of the trust. It is not city council who is bringing forward this piece of legislation. It is this government who's doing that, who's altering the thrust of the conditions of the trust. The minister should own up to his responsibility in terms of consulting.

After all, it was this minister, through the New Era document of this Liberal government, who campaigned on consultation with the public. Yet, lo and behold, on the major piece of legislation that impacted a neighbourhood that has long expressed its views around the Hastings Park site and its uses — and its non-conforming use, I may add, of the site…. They've expressed their concerns for a long, long time. There is lots of debate in the community, and it never occurred to this minister for one moment that he might stop and consult with the people that are impacted on the ground as a result of this change and this piece of legislation.

This letter, the e-mail I read on the record, was addressed to the Premier — not to the city council but to the Premier. It states very clearly how they were not informed of this change until Monday, when the government introduced this bill, and they were deeply sad as a result of that. The change here around the trust is about the whole issue around the use and the non-conforming uses to allow the PNE to continue in its current form.

Why shouldn't the neighbourhood be consulted on this? Why would the minister be as arrogant as he is, to simply say, "To hell with the neighbourhood, and we're

not talking to you because you're not relevant," and presume with such arrogance that somehow the people on the ground who are impacted should not have the right to be consulted on this piece of legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm inclined to remind the member of the speech that was just given by her colleague about parliamentary appropriateness of behaviour, but instead I will try to answer, yet again, that particular question.

I think it is important, when we talk about this…. The member and even her colleague appear to get very exercised over the fact that the province somehow should be engaging in very extensive consultations. Putting aside the city of Vancouver's obligation or right to do that, the province should somehow be doing this.

I'm reminded of when, back in January of 1999, that member's NDP government announced they were moving and relocating the PNE to Burns Bog. I sure don't recall any consultations that were undertaken with the local members of that particular community. I'm a member from Surrey, and I recall when they were planning on moving the PNE to Surrey. I do believe they consulted with the elected officials, as is appropriate, but I certainly don't recall any meetings being held in Surrey having to do with that relocation.

I am, I must confess, a little baffled over what appears to be a double standard on this thing. I repeat again: this is a validating act. This validating act gives life to the original interpretation of the use, betterment, recreation and enjoyment of the public for the Hastings Park Trust lands. That's what it does. What it does do is provide explanatory parameters, which are very clearly laid out, that essentially realize the activities that have taken place for many, many decades on that particular site.

J. MacPhail: Here's how wrong the minister is from a historical perspective. We actually were a government that, yes, proposed something and went and consulted through our MLAs. The Surrey MLAs consulted on that at the time at the public level, and we didn't proceed with that plan. We drafted a new plan, and there were….

The Chair: Members, I'd just remind members to bring it through the Chair, please.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. Really, I don't know what the…. The minister's got some weird idea of decorum that a minister should have, some very weird idea, but…. Actually, I think I'll just leave it at that.

What my constituency is talking about here is that not once did they hear from a Liberal cabinet minister, a Liberal-appointed bureaucrat, a government bureaucrat, about impending changes. Then, they say that if indeed anyone had asked them, there might have been a different clause 2. But they didn't even get a chance to have input — didn't even get a chance. Now we have legislation before us where it's irrefutable. Never, never in the past has any government, Social Credit or NDP, ever done this to the community — never made it irrefutable.

Let me ask the minister this: prior to introducing legislation…. No, I'll start with this: under this legislation, how can changes to the trust and what applies under the trust take place? Is it by regulation or legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Changes to the trust, because it's part of a legislative piece — a statute — would have to be made through the Legislature. Changes to regulation are coming up. If the member wants to jump ahead to that section, we can do that. That would be done by regulation.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure. Maybe the minister did answer my question, but let me break it down into two parts. Prior to Bill 83, am I correct in understanding that any changes to the trust had to be done through legislation?

J. MacPhail: With the, I hope, not passage…. But if this legislation is passed, how will changes to the trust take place after this legislation, Bill 83, is passed?

Hon. K. Falcon: There would essentially be three potential forums for that. One would be legislatively, the other would be through regulation, and the third would be through some delegated authorities that you'll see in the act have been delegated to the city of Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could explain to me how it would still be that it would require legislation when, indeed, changes can now be made by regulation.

Hon. K. Falcon: If I'm understanding the question correctly, and I hope I am, if you wanted to make changes to the Hastings Park Trust, you would require legislative changes to do so. What you will find here in the bill is that many of the uses that currently take place are already spelled out to avoid that requirement. As long as activities are within the context of those parameters we've provided here — under section 2(1)(a) to (f) I believe it is — then that would be fine. If there's anything that's going to be outside of those particular uses, then you would require regulatory change through the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually going to pursue that line of questioning under section 4 further on that. Can the

minister point to me what section it would be here where they would allow for greenspace?

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 4 has been put into place specifically at the direction and request of the city of Vancouver so that when they complete their visioning exercise, for any such changes they may want to move forward with, they will have the ability to do so without having to come back to the province.

J. MacPhail: Is that the minister's answer to where you would do greenspace?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, this member keeps leapfrogging forward to an exercise that hasn't taken place yet. There will be a visioning exercise that will determine, you know, what the future uses of the parks will be. That member can take part in those exercises and determine how much greenspace you wish to have — whether the whole thing should be greenspace, the existing greenspace, reduce the greenspace…. That will be up to the residents of Vancouver through the visioning process.

J. MacPhail: Thank God I asked that second question. I now know the minister doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. My question was…. Under section 2, the minister has said this is a clarification of everything that it's allowed to take place at Hastings Park. It was a 14-year-old kid who pointed out to me…. Where does it say we get a park, greenspace? I'm asking the minister: in sections 2(1)(a) through (h), where does it mandate that there has to be greenspace there?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd be happy to point that out to the 14-year-old in question. Under sub-subsection (g) it says: "(g) to do one or more of develop, undertake and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at Hastings Park if the council of the City of Vancouver determines…." I don't need to continue. Sub-subsection (h) says: "(h) to do anything that is authorized under the regulations." To help out the member, when we say, "to develop, undertake and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged," it means that the green area — the park, as the member referred to it — that is in place and does take place would have every ability to continue to take place.

J. MacPhail: Well, I guess that 14-year-old will just have to read into the minds of this Liberal government that they endorse greenspace. Isn't it interesting that we have the terms of the trust that just clarify, according to this government, the activities that have taken place over 100 years there, and there's not one mention of greenspace, playing fields, trees, water, birds — nothing. It's all about gaming; it's all about security. It's about exhibitions, displays, sports, entertainment and amusement, and not one section about saying there will be greenspace — not one.

Oh, what does the minister say? "Well, you have to read that into the section that says to do one or more of 'develop, undertake and provide any other uses.'" Isn't it interesting that this government feels it absolutely necessary that they protect the right to hold gaming events at the site, but they don't in any way feel it necessary to protect access to greenspace.

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect, the government also doesn't talk about the pavement and the flower beds and whatever else this member wants to talk about. What we're talking about here are the activities — not in the passive, but the actual activities — that take place which need to be enunciated — at the request, I might add, of the city. Again, I say to this member, as I have on every other occasion, that the visioning exercise that is going to be undertaken by the city of Vancouver will afford every opportunity for folks to come down and have their input and discussions about what it is they would like to see as the future of that land.

J. MacPhail: It's absolutely ridiculous that this government says it's just protecting the activities — but there's a whole sector of the east side of Vancouver that wants the land protected — and that those activities interfere with the protection of the land and the greening that has taken huge leaps in the last seven years at that site. Now all of that has to be at the will of some interpretation of regulations.

How is the money that flowed from the provincial level into the greening of Hastings Park going to continue?

Hon. K. Falcon: There has never been any money coming out of the province. It actually has come out of the PNE.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I understand the minister trying to split hairs like that, but the PNE is a Crown corporation where the revenues, if not flowing to the park, would go to the provincial government — correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: There is no operating subsidy from the province to the PNE. The PNE actually spends in excess of almost $2.8 million for the ongoing operations of that particular greenspace in maintaining it and keeping it up, etc.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister doesn't want to be forthcoming on this matter. Is the minister suggesting that no provincial revenues that otherwise would have flown into the provincial coffers go to the greening of Hastings Park?

J. MacPhail: Then how has the greening of Hastings Park taken place to date?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I understand it, every year the park board in the city of Vancouver goes to council and makes a request for an appropriation of funds to in-

clude a whole bunch of park activities, which includes the greening of the site at the PNE.

J. MacPhail: I'm a little bit taken aback by this discussion we're having, quite frankly. I really am. But far be it from me to challenge it at all. It is my recollection that revenues that would have otherwise flowed to the provincial government flowed directly into the greening of Hastings Park, to the tune of about $1.5 million a year — if I'm wrong, I'm wrong — either through racing revenue or PNE revenue.

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, through to the member, you're correct in that you're wrong. That is racing revenue you're thinking about. Racing revenue flows through; PNE revenue does not.

J. MacPhail: Oh my God. Is it that I'm just asking the wrong questions? That money from racing would have flowed either to the PNE or to provincial revenues. Instead, it went into the greening of the park.

Let's not split hairs. I don't know why this minister thinks we're all fools and that somehow…. All right. Was there around $1.5 million of money from that site, which otherwise would have flown into provincial coffers, that went into the greening of the park on an annual basis?

Hon. K. Falcon: There is a separate operating agreement with the city and the racetrack that has nothing to do with us. In terms of the contributions made for that specific area, there were, through the PNE, operations costs that were covered by the corporation of the PNE that went into the greening of that particular land.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to put my own version of this on the record, and we'll let the voters of East Vancouver decide who's playing games and who's splitting hairs. There was an agreement, which my government did with the racetrack, the PNE and the community, to say that as you stay on that site, there must be revenue that flows from that to the greening of the park. It was about $1.5 million per year. In fact, that's how the major portion of the greening has taken place.

Let me ask this of the minister: is that agreement, as a result of this legislation, null and void with the racetrack?

To go back to the question the member was talking about, the agreement the member made reference to was an agreement that I believe she was involved with in 1995. There have been subsequent agreements since then, so that may explain some of the confusion in your thinking that agreement was still in force when there have been subsequent agreements after that particular agreement.

J. MacPhail: I am a bit shocked at how little pride those who were with the PNE before have taken in all of the achievements they've made in greening that park. I am really quite upset about the fact that the PNE is now claiming they did nothing, absolutely nothing, for the greening of that park.

I have quite a different recollection of the contribution that the provincial Crown corporation made to the greening of that site and the racing and the pressure that the corporation, the community and the government of the day put to get that funding in place. That funding would not have been there without provincial government and Crown corporation pressure.

My last question before voting against section 2 is in terms of the consultation. The minister is saying over and over again that the city asked for this. Would he mind standing up and naming names, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The consultations began initially with Mayor Campbell. Mayor Campbell then went to his council and received direction to engage in a negotiation with the province over the issue of the Hastings Park Trust lands and the PNE. The council designated a civil servant named Brent McGregor from the city of Vancouver to undertake those negotiations, and we have been negotiating in good faith with the duly appointed individual, Mr. McGregor, for the past…. As I say, I think it's coming up to two years.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and in April of 2003 there was an announcement: "The province of B.C. announces the city of Vancouver will take over management and operation of the PNE." I of course, not to play any favourites, found out about that at the time of the news announcement. Neither the PNE nor the city nor the province bothered to inform me at all, even though I'm the local MLA.

I'm talking about what's happened since then. The minister has said over and over again that the city of Vancouver asked for clause 2. That's what I'm interested in. Who in the city asked for clause 2, and who wrote that? He also intimated that the city of Vancouver wrote that clause.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as is so often the case — and the member would know this from her years in government — what happens is that an individual civil servant would receive direction from the mayor after receiving direction from council to undertake those discussions and negotiations. He is probably assisted by some very able staffers. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you which specific staffer may have requested this particular section, but I can tell you that the staff involved in the negotiations with the province were duly appointed and given the due authority they needed to make these requests. We've acceded to their requests and worked with them to provide the city with what they needed so that they could move forward and begin their visioning exercise.

J. MacPhail: To date it's been the Vancouver park board who have been greening the site there and doing the public consultations — people like Peter Rutgers, etc. People are well aware that the greening of Hastings Park has taken place under the guidance of the Vancouver park board, so what role did they play in this?

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the things I think is important — and I touched on it in a recent answer, I think, to your colleague — was that it would be…. The member makes reference to the park board and what consultations took place with them. I, at least from this side of the House, can tell you that I would view it as pretty presumptuous for us to engage in negotiations or consultations with the park board over an issue like this when in fact that's the role and the responsibility of the city of Vancouver. What I can tell you is that at the announcement you referenced, in April I believe it was, when we made an announcement of the historic transferring and our intent to transfer responsibility, the park board was there in attendance with the mayor.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm asking about clause 2. I'm trying to get a theme going here. It might be a little hard for the minister to keep track, but there's absolutely no mention in activities of greenspace — absolutely none. There is nothing here to indicate anything other than there'll be a Disneyland used during the Olympics, and that you can now have slot machines and extra gaming activities. That's the way, if you were reading this clause 2, one would interpret it.

So I wondered why they — the community voices and the level of government that participated in the greening of the park at the same time that the PNE was there — were not part of this discussion around clause 2. Is the minister saying that all of that should have been done through the city of Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, this is a process that provides the city of Vancouver the opportunity to go through what they're referring to as the visioning exercise to ensure that all stakeholders can have the opportunity to share their vision of a site that is entirely greened, if necessary.

As to the member's comment about why we're not specifically talking about the green section here, it's for the same reason we're not talking about the light standards and we're not talking about the pavement and the flowerpots. It's not that they're not important and not that they're not there; it's just that those are not activities that are happening on the site.

What we are saying is that the annual raffle, the bingo and the limited casino events that take place on the site are things that are, in fact, taking place. We recognize that we've got a greenspace there that is used by the public and will continue to be used by the public. There is tremendous opportunity, I think, for members from that member's riding, if they feel strongly — the section of the community that feels strongly that the whole rest of the park should be greenspace — to have every opportunity to bring that belief forward at the visioning exercise. I think that's a wonderful thing.

J. MacPhail: Only a member such as this member would suggest that greenspace is not an activity. Only a member such as this minister would suggest that greenspace is equivalent to a light standard. He clearly does not have any idea of the history of what's happened at this site, where the community fought long and hard to have greenspace designated as a use.

That's exactly what happened in the late 1990s because of community efforts, because of provincial government efforts, because of the PNE efforts, because of the park board efforts, and now he says a greenspace isn't a use. Well, I can hardly wait to hear the feedback from the community on that statement from the minister.

I'll tell you that the combination of the lack of mentioning greenspace anywhere in the legislation and this minister somehow saying that this section clarifies uses has many people afraid of what's going to happen to the greenspace on that site. What we have here is a 114-year-old trust and a community that advocated on how that trust should be interpreted. Just short of having to go to court, it got the ear of the Social Credit provincial government of the day, who acknowledged that the trust should be interpreted in a way that moved that park toward more community use and greater greenspace.

Twenty years later they have the greenspace, they have the playing fields, they have the sanctuary, and they have the gardens — all of which are used, all of which are activities on the site. They're not passive matters, such as a light standard or a flower box. None of that has this government chosen to include in its new clarification of the trust. It's on that basis, amongst many others, that the opposition will be voting against this clause.

K. Johnston: I guess I interpret what I'm reading in section 2 somewhat differently than the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I read this, and I don't see anywhere where greenspace is precluded from being an active condition of enjoyment and recreation to the public.

The question to the minister is: in terms of section 2 and the conditions of trust that started in, I guess, 1889, is that condition of trust continued on in this particular act and amendments to this act?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it is. In fact, what this section does is provide some explanatory parameters around the original definition that was provided in the 1889 trust for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Vancouver. I think that's very important.

To touch on something that you alluded to, based on what the last member had been saying, you're absolutely right that it is there. Again, I look at sub-subsection (g): "…consistent…uses and activities…." It can't be much more clear than that in terms of it will not "undertake

and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at Hastings Park…." It's as clear as it could ever be, so I do think it's sometimes incumbent upon hon. members to make sure that they don't try and unnecessarily frighten people or unnecessarily suggest to people that things are as they really aren't. I'm glad to confirm that for the hon. member.

K. Johnston: I guess I'm also looking at the original intent of 1889. It's hard to know what they were thinking back then, but I think it's pretty clear. The interpretation for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the public…. There's been a fair amount of debate and discussion regarding the current uses being offside. I get that.

My question to the minister is: has there, in fact, been an interpretation that those uses that have gone on for the last 90 years are not for the enjoyment and recreation of the public? Has there been some sort of a commercial interpretation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that's an excellent question, because what it really does is ask the question: what was the original purpose? What did the authors of that original trust mean when they stated, "the use, enjoyment and recreation of the public" back in 1889?

Part of that was answered with some of the very early things that took place on that site. As early as 1910 we know that horse racing began. Very shortly thereafter you had essentially what became a modern midway start up, where you had spinning games and the kind of typical gaming you would see at circus carnivals, etc. So really that use and enjoyment, in the minds of residents of Vancouver, clearly evolved.

Today, with 4,000 employees working on that particular site — 150 of them full-time CUPE members, the member for Vancouver-Hastings might be interested to know — and 3,850 part-time members — 2,600 of which are young people — I would suspect a lot of those folks and a lot of their families are quite happy with how things have expanded.

In fact, one thing you might find interesting is back in January of 1999, when the former government announced that they were going to relocate the PNE to Burns Bog — again a decision that was done without consultation and cancelled very quickly two months later once they realized the impact of that — the PNE undertook a survey by Angus Reid. This was the PNE corporation at the time of the member's being in government. I thought it had some interesting figures in it, and one of them I'd just like to read into the record. One of the survey questions was the whole question of: do you support or not support extending the existing lease of the PNE at the current site? Interestingly, within a 16-to-20-block radius — that's the folks right around that PNE area, who would certainly have the greatest interest — 81 percent supported extending the PNE lease. The number one reason that those supporters gave is because they liked the location.

You know, I think that consultation is a very, very important thing, and there are different kinds of consultations. The PNE — back in the member's day, the Leader of the Opposition's day — had the corporation do a poll, which showed quite strong support in that area right around the PNE for it to extend and stay. Nevertheless, they looked at other options that didn't prove quite as popular.

I think the principle of consulting with the people is a hugely important one, and that's why I am absolutely convinced that the visioning exercise that the city of Vancouver is putting together as a result of the piece of legislation that we are here debating will allow them to undertake several years' worth of discussions — at least a couple of years, I should say — with the public to determine what the people of Vancouver, broadly speaking, really do want to see as the future of that site. That is something I give credit to the mayor of Vancouver and to the leadership of his council for doing, because it's the right thing to do.

K. Johnston: Well, I'm certainly in agreement on the consultation side of it. I have to ask the question, in terms of consultation…. With regard to the mayor and council of Vancouver, I'm kind of interested if there was really any objection from those parties to this agreement.

Hon. K. Falcon: The process of consultation, as I alluded to earlier on, was a fairly extensive consultation period that really has taken some 22 months of to and fro. When you engage in any kind of a consultation or negotiation like that, there is the normal toing and froing that you get between, frankly, mostly staff people. The city of Vancouver operates very similarly to the way the province operates, where we appoint some very competent staff people to go and give them the direction in which we would like to see this move.

Our core review very clearly stated that it's not the province's interest to be running an amusement park. We bring no particular magic to running amusement parks, although I must say we financially did a reasonably good job at turning around a money-losing operation. Nevertheless, the opportunity now is really for the city to seize on the opportunity.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sorry. I'm being interrupted by a member. I'm trying to answer the question of another member.

Hon. K. Falcon: Through the Chair to the member for whom I'm answering the question, right from the beginning, I do know that the minister that held re-

sponsibility for this file prior to myself — the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — had some discussions with the mayor. I can't pretend to tell you any details; I wasn't party to those discussions. But I do know that the process really went very well over the last 22 months in terms of the negotiations that took place between the staffs from the respective ministries.

K. Johnston: Yeah, I think consultation at the level closest to the public, which is the civic level, is very important.

There was a question earlier regarding the fiasco at Burns Bog and trying to move the PNE there. I think there was a question about consultation. According to Hansard of 1999 — June 5, I believe — the minister of the day was asked the question about consultation in Delta and, in fact, answered by saying that, yes, he did consult with the mayor and council of the day but thought it was too early to actually go out to the public. I just wanted to draw a parallel there.

I guess my question to the minister is: did the city of Vancouver, in fact, ask the province to go ahead with a public consultation process ahead of their visioning process? Did they ever make that request?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's an excellent question. No. At no time did the city ask the province to undertake a separate consultation process that would have worked either alongside or in contravention of the visioning process they had laid out. I think it is an excellent question because you did touch on something that we keep hearing from the members opposite about this duty of consultation that we've apparently violated, where we forgot to talk to all these groups, and yet we know, as you correctly pointed out, that in the Burns Bog situation there was no consultation outside of some consultation with the elected members.

That was the same thing in Surrey. I know because I was in Surrey watching it very closely, wondering why a government could be so crazy to pay that kind of a price for that kind of land in Whalley. It was of interest to me, because I was wondering where the consultations would be, and there weren't any.

I think that as we talk about this, we have to at least be consistent. What we're doing is absolutely consistent with what the previous government did — and that is, when you are engaging in a change like this, you consult with the local level of government; you make sure that you have the to and fro you need to have at those two levels, appointed by their residents to act on their behalf, and that they now will be engaging in a visioning exercise that will open it wide-open to all the residents of Vancouver, so that every opportunity and every stakeholder will have a chance to have their input and their say, as they should.

K. Johnston: Was there ever any indication…? Have you got any information on what the visioning process would be? In Vancouver they've done a lot of community visioning in various sections of the city. Would it be like a public hearing? Do we have any input back on that, as a government?

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that the city is just undertaking that process and is going to be rolling that process out very shortly, in terms of how this particular visioning exercise will be undertaken. I'm not privy to all the details of how the city of Vancouver will engage in that process.

K. Johnston: I'm not sure I'm getting ahead of myself on this question, because I'm having a hard time determining where it's at. In terms of the restructuring of the transfer and the new board that's proposed…. I believe it's seven people. How can I put this? How will the public be ensured that this board will represent the interests of the trust? Have we as a government or as a province had to put in any stipulations regarding the board?

Hon. K. Falcon: The city of Vancouver will now be responsible for appointing the board — as of January 1, 2004. We didn't tell them how many members they should have on the board. That will be up to the city of Vancouver. That board will then make its own direction and recommendations on the future of the operations of the Pacific National Exhibition.

K. Johnston: With regard to the PNE operation, why — if it was a profitable business — did we as a province decide to devolve it, get away from it, give it to the city, transfer it, or whatever the terms are?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the hon. member may know, the lands and buildings are owned by the city, and one of the decisions of core review is that this is not a core service of government — to be running an amusement park. In fact, we did not feel any sense of expertise in this particular area, and fortunately there are people much more talented than we are that could undertake this.

I will say on that point, though, that when we inherited the PNE, you'll know we removed the previous board that was appointed by the previous government and put into place some individuals — actually, some public servants who really deserve a lot of credit. I just want to make mention of them here on the record. We had Steve Hollett, former Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and vice-president of Partnerships B.C.; Doug Callbeck, who is an assistant deputy minister of management services of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise and also an ADM in the Energy and Mines ministry; Chris Nelson, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines; and of course the president at the time, Annette Antoniak. They became the board.

What is consistent with how we always oversee the operations of Crown corporations is that we put a board in place with good people and we tell them we expect them to run it efficiently and effectively, and

that's exactly what they did. So they actually took the PNE from a $3.5 million negative equity situation in 2001 up to today, where we now have a $500,000 negative equity position in the PNE corporation. Really, a lot of credit goes to those folks and of course the employees, who have done a very good job of turning that situation around.

K. Johnston: One final question from me. Is the province contributing financially towards this takeover by the city of Vancouver — anything on this particular transfer?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. Under the terms of the agreement, we have guaranteed to the city of Vancouver that there will be two things that will happen. One is a $2.2 million transfer from the province to the city to deal with any mitigating issues that they could conceivably think may arise. The second was that we would ensure we would take care of the negative net equity situation of half a million dollars that currently exists, and we would make sure it is returned to them with no negative net equity.

R. Nijjar: To the minister: what type of consultation process did the NDP government undertake when it came to consulting with the community of East Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I need is perhaps a little more detail on what time period we're looking at or which particular year. You know, this thing went on from the early nineties well into 2000. Maybe you can just be a little more specific about what particular year we're talking about, or give me a marker there.

R. Nijjar: In the early 1990s, in the Harcourt era, what type of consultation took place?

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that the provincial government engaged in some community-based public meetings. These are not citywide public meetings, but they're specific to the community. I believe there were some public meetings that took place within that specific community.

Hon. K. Falcon: For those viewing, I'm being interrupted by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is chattering away about who knows what. I would encourage her, if she has a question, to do so through the Chair.

R. Nijjar: These consultations were open to the public in the sense that it was open to groups or societies or individuals in the east side or in the vicinity of the PNE.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, frankly, I have to be candid. I don't have any particular intimate knowledge of what the NDP government was doing in the east end of Vancouver in the early nineties in terms of their community-based public consultation. I have to accept the chattering I hear from the other side of the House suggesting that it did take place.

Hon. K. Falcon: At length, apparently. I'm prepared to accept the word of the member for Vancouver-Hastings that it did, in fact, take place. It's unfortunate it didn't take place in the other communities. Apparently, that would have been a nice thing to have happen in Surrey, and it certainly would have been nice to have it happen in Delta. Nevertheless, I guess in this case that particular community — not citywide but that community — did receive some consultation process apparently.

R. Nijjar: Does the minister have any knowledge of an attempt to consult with specific groups — i.e., minor sports organizations — that made use of the facilities on the grounds?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think that's an excellent question. It's an excellent question because what is not often known by folks who may be from outside of that particular area is there are numerous activities that take place — with kids' minor hockey, figure skating — and that in fact the PNE corporation subsidizes to the tune of $150,000-plus a year, I think it is. I would surely hope those folks were consulted. Again, I'm just not privy, unfortunately, to the details of what consultations took place on that weekend in East Vancouver back in the early nineties.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I find it hilarious how, for the very first time, members from Vancouver decide they want to get up and find out what went on in the 1990s. To ask this minister for any expertise, other than him trying to do a total recall of all NDP MLAs — and failing miserably at that — is ridiculous. He was, in the late 1990s, trying to do a total recall of all NDP MLAs, claiming not to be a Liberal, and it turns out here he is

talking about what went on in the city of Vancouver. Here's the member for Vancouver-Kingsway trying to talk about consultation.

Well, I'll give the history of that consultation. It wasn't one weekend of consultation. It was weekend after weekend of consultation — specific consultation with minor sports leagues, specific consultation with seniors groups. It was open. There were displays. And you know what the result was of all of that? The community rejected the Disneyland-like approach that the Harcourt government initially was going to take at the PNE site, and so we redid it all — and consultation after consultation.

Here's what I find very curious about this government: they have two defences when they're caught out. First, they say: "Oh, we're just as bad as the NDP was." I love that; I love it. "We're just as bad as the NDP was." Well, isn't that a sterling defence of their government's activities? Then their second approach is: "Well, it's not our problem. It's someone else's problem. It's the school board's problem. It's the health authority's problem." Now it's the city of Vancouver's problem. Well, let me just tell you about what previous governments, including Social Credit governments, didn't do. They didn't bring in legislation to alter forever what can or cannot take place at that site.

Let me ask this question to the minister: when was the Hastings Park Trust last legislated?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's going to have to clarify her question. I have no idea what she's trying to say.

J. MacPhail: The minister, along with his backbench government caucus — I was going to use an unparliamentary word, so I won't — is trying to make the case that this government's just doing exactly the same thing as every other government did. What I'm actually saying….

The government's trying to say…. I'm just trying to target their first defence, which is: "We're just doing what the big, bad NDP did. We're no worse than them." My question is: when was the last time the Hastings Park Trust was legislated?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, if I'm following through on the theatrics that are taking place from the opposite side there, I will say to the member: in 1889.

J. MacPhail: Here we have a situation where — gosh — that big, bad government…. "They did just as much an injustice as our government is doing" is basically the argument, and it turns out that no, the Hastings Park Trust has not been touched by any government until this government.

Let me ask this question: when was the PNE act last changed, and how was it changed?

Hon. K. Falcon: The last change to the PNE was in 2001. I'm not going to be entirely certain on the month, but that would be when we brought in a change to the board and how many individuals would sit on the board.

R. Nijjar: I find it absolutely amazing how the member for Vancouver-Hastings talks so explicitly about consultation processes and what great consultations took place. She describes them in so much detail. Then when the minister says we are giving the city the authority to do the exact same thing, all of a sudden it is such a dirty and bad thing to do. How funny it is that some people that were in government like consultation when they can control the outcome they want but don't like consultation when it is open-ended and can actually go any direction. How funny that is. All of a sudden consultation is a bad thing.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings spoke so much about how even the NPA city council worked in a consultation process. Now we are giving the NDP in the city control over consultation, but because that isn't closed-ended, because it doesn't give that member's Hastings Park Conservancy all the control of the direction and all the control over public consultation and all the control over the voices of the east side of Vancouver, all of a sudden consultation is a bad thing.

My question to the minister is: other than the amateur sports teams he expressed receive benefits from the facilities there, what other economic benefits are there for particular organizations and industries?

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for the delay, but I was thinking about all the activities that take place there. This really is significant, because it speaks directly to the use and enjoyment of the site for the residents of Vancouver. It includes things like junior hockey. It includes things like the Vancouver Giants, who are attracting some real interest among the public who use and enjoy that particular opportunity to watch the team. It includes religious events, trade and consumer shows that take place regularly on the site, filming — which is increasingly becoming a real opportunity in some of the those buildings and on location to help our burgeoning movie sector — and concerts. The amusement park itself obviously provides enormous enjoyment.

There's a whole range of activities there that British Columbians and local residents have enjoyed for a very long time. I think it comes back to this whole discussion about consultation. What is the duty of the prov-

ince to consult? It just seems really clear to me that we ought to follow in the path of consultation with the appropriate level of government, which we have done — and done very cooperatively, I might add — with the city of Vancouver. This was not a negotiation that was filled with acrimony or bitterness or that started off on the wrong foot. This is something that is very cooperative. Vancouver sees this as a real positive for the city as they move forward with their visioning exercise.

Again, I just have to say this. When the member opposite is going to stand up and talk about this lack of consultation, I am going to continually remind that member of her government in January '99, when they said they were going to move the PNE over to Burns Bog without consultation when their own polling showed that 81 percent of the folks that lived within a 16-to-20-block radius of the site supported extending the lease for the PNE. I'm just fascinated by that dichotomy, but I hope that answers the member's question.

J. MacPhail: And I'm going to allow the words of the Liberal MLAs from Vancouver to speak for themselves. It's been fascinating so far in terms of the public reaction.

I just want to point one thing out to the minister as he makes this comparison. I know he was busy in Prince George and Prince Rupert, trying to do total recall — and he failed miserably at that — during that period of time, but I just want to point out the difference between his government and the previous government.

It's symbolized in things like Coquihalla, where this government…. Not only do they not do any consultation, but they then bring in legislation that just slaps aside one point of view completely — not that that point of view should dominate. I think the member from Kingsway is trying to say that there are people in our community who want it all to be greenspace. He's so out of touch with it that he completely fails to understand that the community actually welcomed the PNE to stay there about two years ago.

He completely misunderstands that there can be joint and consensual use at the site but that you actually have to discuss with all aspects of the community about the future of the site — unlike this government, where they just ignore one point of view. They bring in legislation so that no matter what happens, this government's point of view prevails. It's like the Coquihalla. Yes, the previous government looked at privatizing the Coquihalla. We consulted, we investigated, we had our MLAs look at it, and we came back and said: "No, it's not going to work."

It's like when one minister of our Crown floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog. We went out and talked to city council. We actually talked to the Burns Bog Conservation Society. We talked to the Vancouver community, and in fact….

J. MacPhail: I just love it how the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is finally doing what he considers to be his job.

We rejected — withdrew — the proposal. We didn't proceed with it. In fact, this government says: "Oh, we're just trying to do exactly the same thing as the previous government." Well, no. Here's the difference: they're actually not consulting with the community, and they're proceeding with legislation anyway.

That's why I specifically asked the minister when the last time was that this legislation was changed, and it was 1889. No government has dared interfere with the trust except his government. No government has dared ignore one part of the community and still proceed.

Make that comparison to 1999 and moving the PNE to Burns Bog. What government in 1999 floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog and still proceeded in spite of community criticism? No government except his government has proceeded with actions in the face of community opposition. Only his government has done that.

Hon. K. Falcon: There was no question, but surely there's an opportunity for me to enjoy the repartee.

The member again brought up the January '99 information, and I do think that discussion is worthy of exploring, because it actually comes into the whole question of: what is consultation? The member has been very critical about our apparent lack of consultation. She just went on and told this House that they engaged in consultations with the Burns Bog Conservation Society and the elected members of Delta, presumably. It must have been quite a conversation you had with the Burns Bog Conservation Society, because within not even 24 hours they were out and they were very angry. It sounds like it was a notification to me, not a consultation. Nevertheless, I'll allow the member to decide what level of consultation that was.

I was never in Prince George having anything to do with recall, you'll be happy to know.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's fascinating that this member talks like this, because it shows such a disjointed approach to the reality of what took place. There was Burns Bog Conservation Society. I can tell you that the Burns Bog Conservation Society consultation probably went something like this: "We're putting a park inside your bog. Hope you'll enjoy it. We think it's a great idea." You know, the reaction pretty much

I also, again, just can't help but think that at the same time this member is going on about consultation — keep this in mind, folks, because this is fascinating — she's doing it in the climate of her own Crown corporation undertaking a poll showing that 81 percent of the people within a 16-to-20-block radius actually don't want it moved. But they're announcing in January '99 that it's getting moved. It's going to Burns Bog.

Now, after spending a couple of million dollars of wasted money on consultants and everything else investigating the Burns Bog thing, they then flipped over and said: "Let's put it in the PNE." Well, here comes round two of the consultation approach according to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. That followed pretty much the same scenario that happened under the Burns Bog approach. That was a phone call to the mayor, perhaps to some of the city staffers, and that was the extent of the consultation. I'm pretty sure that the member from Vancouver-Whalley didn't hear anything about this. I'm certain I can tell you that the member — myself — was not made aware of any consultations that were being undertaken before the city, before the province.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know, but I was a member of the public. That might surprise the member opposite — that a resident of Surrey might actually be interested in what's going on.

So what happened was that government, under the leadership of that particular member, actually went into Surrey, and they paid over $20 million for a piece of land that nobody in the private sector would have paid anywhere close to that price. Nobody would have paid that price.

Here this member, having overpaid for this land, now is in a situation where the interest costs alone on this land that they bought — a decision made in the days prior to the election being called — were costing the hard-working taxpayers of Surrey $100,000 a month — that clock just ticking away on this irresponsible, poorly thought out, no-business-plan proposal that this government, the government of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, went forward with.

Where is it today? Today the members of this House will be saddened to yet again learn that another deal that they were involved with will be costing millions of dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia. The hard-working folks in this province are going to have to take a bath to the tune of millions of dollars when that land is resold, because the offer they currently have in place is millions of dollars less than what her government paid for it. That is truly a shame.

The Chair: Will the Leader of the Opposition wait for the minister to finish.

The Chair: Order, minister. Will the Leader of the Opposition please let the minister finish before responding. You will have your opportunity.

Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely. No, I didn't misspeak at all. In fact, the Land and Water B.C.… It's my understanding that there's an agreement in place that is substantially below the amount that the member for Vancouver-Hastings's government purchased that land for. I believe that you will be made aware of that information in the very near term.

J. MacPhail: I would just be interested in knowing this last information that the minister put on record there. He's alleging a loss of millions of dollars, so could he please specify exactly what piece of land he's talking about. He just alleged that in the House. No, he stated it in the House. What piece of land, and what's the price differential, please? He's the one that brought it up.

R. Nijjar: This is the version of NDP consultation. We all know what happened at Burns Bog. It wasn't consultation. The minister is very correct. The version of consultation at Burns Bog is the same version of consultation that the NDP had for ten years. They decided amongst themselves on a whim or through some type of process, probably with Adrian Dix or whoever it may have been: "Hey, let's pave over a great environmental part of our community and a sanctuary that is an example all over the world, actually." Apparently there's only about one other site in North America that even comes close to it. "Let's just pave it over."

The public was so upset, so irate, and the complaints were so loud that the government had no choice but to back down. Did they fight? Of course they did. They didn't back down in a day. This went on for quite a while. What's amazing is they tried everything they possibly could to make it work, probably because they had already invested and they knew they were going to lose dollars.

When it comes to consultation now, to the Hastings Park site, a lot is the same thing. Sure, they call it consultation, but it's really consultation if they control the direction, just like with the budget. There wasn't really

respect for the public where you disclose what's really going on. As one of the member for Vancouver-Hastings' colleagues, a minister of the NDP government, said after the '96 election: "Well, you know, government can do anything. Government can lie. That's okay. As long as you get away with it, you can do anything. Ha, ha, ha. We're on this side of the Legislature, back in government."

If there was consultation, the NDP version of consultation, how much did consultation cost for the process they undertook at Burns Bog?

Hon. K. Falcon: The total cost that was expended in looking into the relocation options and all of those such things was $2.1 million. Now, I might add one more thing. In the House the other day I did inadvertently state that the cost of actually moving the exhibition from Vancouver to Surrey was between $80 million and $100 million. In fact, I was corrected by my very capable staff here. That cost would have been in excess of $200 million, which I think you will find helpful in terms of thinking about the whole viability of that particular lack of planning.

R. Nijjar: Just to clarify, the minister is saying $200 million was spent on not just the consultation process, I assume, but the whole hiring of consultants for the business plan, etc. — on everything to do with moving the PNE from Vancouver to Surrey.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to clarify, $2.1 million was spent on the consultants and reports, etc., determining a relocation to Burns Bog in Surrey. The $200 million was not expended, thank goodness, because we cancelled that project very quickly upon getting elected. The $200 million it would have cost to move the exhibition over to Surrey fortunately wasn't expended, and so we thus saved the taxpayers of British Columbia the opportunity of having another major white elephant take place.

R. Nijjar: What more can be said about $2.1 million being spent on something that was an exact, absolute, abject failure in Surrey? Yet again, just like with the Burns Bog, they tried to force it in there. Was there ever a complete business plan or any degree of a business plan being shown to the public?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is a very important question, because we are able to tell the member that there was no viable business plan that was approved by government. Certainly, there was no business plan that was presented into the public realm for the public to see what was driving these almost impossible-to-imagine decisions relating to the relocation of the PNE from Vancouver to Surrey.

R. Nijjar: Well, it's not a surprise at all that there was absolutely no business plan or at least no business plan forthcoming to the public — much like there was no business plan for the fast ferries and much like there was no business plan for almost every single big project that they undertook.

The Chair: I'll remind the member — if we could stay to section 2, please.

R. Nijjar: Like the SkyTrain they built, which was of course the great overrun….

Now, in the 2010 Olympic business plan, what relationship is there to the use of facilities at Hastings Park?

Hon. K. Falcon: In terms of the facilities that will be involved in 2010, the Agrodome will be a training facility for figure skating. The Coliseum will be used for skating and short-track skating. There will also be a temporary facility where the barns used to be that will replace the barns and will also provide short-track training opportunities for the athletes.

I must say this. In speaking, really, in the spirit of some of the great things that 2010 will achieve, I cannot think of a more exciting opportunity for all the young kids in that neighbourhood and all the neighbourhoods around Vancouver who will be able to see world-class athletes training in front of them. What an inspiration for the young girls and boys in the community.

J. MacPhail: Back to the question about the sale of land. The minister himself brought this issue up, so I'd like to know the parcel of land that he talked about where the province is going to lose, he said, millions of dollars on. Could he please tell us what the two figures are and when this information was made public?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly. What I can tell the member opposite is roughly, in general terms, what I tried to tell the member opposite, and that is that there is a conditional sales agreement in place. The terms of the conditional sales agreement, as is standard in an agreement such as that, are confidential, so I won't be able to release to the member the confidential nature of it.

What I can say to the member is that I have a high degree of confidence that the amount that will ultimately be transacted in that particular sale will be less than the amount that your government paid for that particular land. Any private sector investor and developer will have told you — in fact, most of their heads snapped back in shock when that acquisition was announced, because that actually set a new yardstick for land prices in the Whalley area…. Only a government led by folks such as yourself would have paid that kind of enormous amount of money for such a marginal piece of land.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, he specifically said millions of dollars will be lost, so he didn't have any trouble with the confidentiality agreement then — when he was standing up, spewing off. He specifically

said millions of dollars, so I assume there isn't any confidentiality agreement. Name the figures, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned, there are confidentiality provisions. What I said….

Hon. K. Falcon: No, I made a prediction that I suspect the amount that will be realized on that will be substantially millions less than what that member's government paid for it. However, what I would like to do is direct the member back to the section we're trying to discuss here — section 2. I'm hoping we can engender some conversation and move things along under section 2 of the bill.

J. MacPhail: Well, I can imagine why the minister wants to do that. It's because he broke a confidentiality…. Here he is, a minister of the Crown, breaking a confidentiality agreement, making allegations that he now won't back up because he misspoke himself. He's broken a confidentiality agreement, and he's doing it all in the name of partisan, cheap politics. That's what he's doing, Mr. Chair.

For those members who are concerned about what section we're on, it's the minister himself that put this on the record — no one else. He made specific references to a piece of land, and he's doing it all in the format of cheap politics — which is all this government does — just the same way that he uses cheap politics around Burns Bog.

Oh, I can see the minister. The minister is extremely nervous. He wants to move on. When will this land deal be announced publicly? Now that we all know what it's about, when will it be announced publicly?

The Chair: Members, I have allowed leeway on the questioning at this time, but I think we should get back to section 2 and stay on section 2.

J. MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for your guidance. Could the minister please answer my question?

R. Hawes: I've been sitting here, listening to this back and forth, and I think it is time to get back to the act that we're talking about. Around the consultation piece that I've been hearing so much about, I wonder if I could just start by going back to the trust condition that says Hastings Park is going to be left to Vancouver and the successors for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public.

To the minister: when they say public, is that restricted to just the citizens of Vancouver, or is it entrusted for the use of all the public, including Surrey — or maybe even Mission, where I live?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be all the public. There is no restriction contemplated there.

R. Hawes: Now, to the consultation…. I listened patiently through all the stuff that was going back and forth here. I listened to the member opposite talk so much about consultation and what she did in consultation. By the way, I spent a good part of the 1990s in local government. I had the good fortune of representing the folks in Mission as mayor through that period — unfortunately, through the decade the NDP were in power.

I'm very familiar with their consultation. I'm very familiar with phone calls, consultation phone calls that would be: "Oh, by the way, we announced 15 minutes ago that your courthouse will close next Monday." Or perhaps when I sat on the community health council, after two years of diligent work by many citizens — a phone call. A lot of consultation…. That very member decided we were all fired, unceremoniously dumped because she had decided to go to a different system. There wasn't any consultation — no consultation.

R. Hawes: Four months of consultation, she says, but I was there, and I was the one who received the call that said: "You're done." Same thing happened on the hospital board.

With respect to consultation, when consultation takes place, I wonder…. I've heard the member opposite talk so much about consultation in East Vancouver. I'm wondering: is consultation going to take place broadly? Will the citizens of Kerrisdale, for example…?

R. Hawes: Of course, I know the member opposite said earlier that she doesn't speak out when others are speaking. I wonder what that voice is that I keep hearing here, which is so disturbing while I'm trying to ask a question. Perhaps, just in order of civility…. Perhaps rudeness is something people should think about here, and let somebody ask a question.

Will the citizens of Kerrisdale and other areas of Vancouver be consulted through the Vancouver consultation that's contemplated in this bill?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, they will. That's one of the beauties of the visioning exercise. It intends to broadly engage the residents of Vancouver in the visioning exercise. That will include the residents from Kerrisdale and the folks from the west side of Vancouver too.

R. Hawes: If a lot of the folks in Vancouver decide that they're really not particularly interested in further greening of this park, would the Vancouver council possibly listen to the majority of the population of Vancouver and do that which they say should be done to the park? Do you think that's possible?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the beauty of this legislation is that it will give the city of Vancouver the right to make that determination. You know, I just keep coming back to the fact that there are these suggestions that somehow consultation is not being undertaken. There will be a massive consultation effort undertaken. I appreciate the member reminding the House of that fact, because there will be every opportunity for groups and stakeholders and people with visions of parks and people with visions of amusement rides and people with visions of the great activity that takes place in minor hockey and young girls' figure skating. There will be every opportunity for all those folks across Vancouver to be heard.

R. Hawes: On behalf of my own constituents now, who — I'll be blunt about it — aren't particularly going to have any concern one way or the other, mostly, about greenspace in the park…. We have greenspace in our community; we have built parks, etc.

My constituents, I know, are very interested in that park with respect to horse racing, with respect to the PNE activities that take place there, Playland, the Coliseum, the sports venues that are already built there. That's their interest: in making sure they are preserved and continue on. Can the minister confirm for my constituents that this act allows those activities and ensures that their interest in this park will be preserved?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can absolutely confirm that the whole purpose of this — the whole purpose of providing the explanatory parameters around the original intent of the trust for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the members of the public — will allow those activities to continue on until such time as the city, through its visioning process, may determine that they want to have a different direction. That will be completely and entirely up to the city of Vancouver and the direction they undertake through their visioning exercise. It is really something that will be the product of an exercise that the city of Vancouver will be carrying out, and it's a direction we very much support.

I will say this, because some members — particularly members opposite — have continually suggested that I or members of government don't have any interest in or knowledge of this site because we may not live in the immediate neighbourhood…. I grew up on the North Shore, yet somehow I don't have any tie to this site. Well, I will tell those members that I actually used to work at the PNE. As a young man going through school, the money I earned at the PNE was very, very helpful to me.

I imagine that I probably typify so many of the other 2,600 young people who work at that Pacific National Exhibition and earn and learn important skills in the workplace and bring those important skills into their future life and support them as they go through school. I appreciate you asking that question and broadening the whole issue of who ought to be consulted and who has an interest.

R. Hawes: Having worked for a long time at the local government level, I do have to tell you that I have a huge amount of confidence and faith in the consultation process that takes place at the local level. I also have to tell you, being a member of this government, that I'm very comfortable with the way we do consult.

I was a victim at the local level, as my city was a victim at the local level, of the processes employed by the former government. I can understand the member opposite being concerned about consultation, because she doesn't understand what true consultation means. That's really clear when a government would pass an act to say: "We've taken away a big slice of your grants, but just to preserve the balance and make sure there's always certainty, we're going to pass an act to make sure the municipal grants are protected." The following year the consultation piece was not even a phone call, just an announcement that the grants were slashed in violation of the act that they themselves had written. That's consultation.

I understand why that member would be concerned about the consultation process, because she knows how she consulted and she can trust absolutely no one. I, on the other hand, and many of my colleagues do come from local government. We know the consultation process that's used at local government.

You know, the Vancouver council doesn't represent me. I didn't vote for them, but because of the way they were elected and because of the type of government they represent, I have absolute confidence that the Vancouver city council will consult broadly and will follow the wishes of the people of Vancouver. I believe they will protect the interests of my constituents.

If the people of Vancouver say they want further greenspace, then that's what will happen there. If the people of Vancouver say no, that's not what they want — if that happened — then I'm quite sure they're also going to reflect the wishes of the people who elected them. That's what local democracy is all about. It's a concept that I know escapes that member opposite.

My question is going to be to the minister. Have I got this right once and for all? I heard the member opposite saying to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as an aside to him: "You've asked that question. Why do you keep asking it?"

I've heard her ask about the consultation piece, and you answered 20 times today. The horse is long dead and been whipped so many times. The consultation process will be broad. Have I got this correct? The city of Vancouver will go out and ask the population what they want with this park. Have I got that correct?

L. Mayencourt: I've been listening to the debate with great interest. I live in the city of Vancouver obviously, and the PNE-Hastings Park has a fairly substantial place in my memories. I can remember lots of times receiving my pass with my report card in June, going

to the PNE in August and having a terrific time. I've also seen the way that the PNE evolved, how Playland became more visible as an entity.

I also watched with great interest some of the public consultation process that went forward — other members have referenced it, including the member for Vancouver-Hastings — during the early nineties to try and redevelop the Hastings Park site by defining it as Hastings Park. I took great pleasure in seeing some of those developments happen, and I spoke about those the other day — the issue of the greening of Hastings Park. I talked about the sanctuary, which is just a gorgeous and beautiful part of our city and something that's very, very important to the people who live in that neighbourhood. I've spoken with many of the activists that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has spoken about, the heroes, the people who said this was something that was really important for us. I think there was a great deal of consultation with that core group. I think there was a lot of time spent with that community trying to develop a park that they could use all the time.

I'm very impressed with the work that they've done. You know, we've got a variety of gardens there. We have the Italian gardens, the sanctuary, the Momiji Gardens and Empire fields now. We've come to a point where we have really, I think, done an awful lot with that park. I don't know to what extent the provincial government funded those enhancements to Hastings Park. I don't think it really matters. I think that people don't care who wrote the cheque. I think that what they care about is the fact that Hastings Park is now more and more usable for people in that community.

There's been a lot of talk about the consultation process, and some of the members here have alluded to the fact that perhaps not all members of Vancouver or even of the lower mainland had a place at the consultation table. I know that for me, a resident of the city of Vancouver, it was really not something that a person from the West End was encouraged to do. As a matter of fact, we were pretty much excluded from the process, so when I hear about the need for people from all of Vancouver to be consulted on this, I think that's a very strong and important thing.

I was very interested to read Mayor Campbell's comments about this from the city of Vancouver when he said that it's an important and historic part of the fabric of our city and that he really welcomed the opportunity to have this visioning process take place within the city of Vancouver and to go about making sure that all consideration was given to them.

I also share the view of the member from Mission that this particular park does not belong to one neighbourhood. It does not belong to Hastings-Sunrise. It belongs to the West End; it belongs to all of those neighbourhoods. I am convinced from hearing this debate that the city of Vancouver has very wisely decided that they want to have an open consultation process to take place, and I salute that.

As I'm listening to this, I'm thinking to myself: you know, last week we passed a piece of legislation that was really important. I didn't hear anything from the members opposite. I see that we're talking here about taking a park that is in the city of Vancouver, turning it over to the residents of Vancouver and allowing them to manage it, to be the directors and to decide what they're going to do with it. I think that's a wonderful thing, and I think that's what the people of Vancouver are saying that we need to do.

When I look at the bill, it's a very short bill, and it doesn't really have anything that's that inflammatory, as far as I can see. First off, we're adjusting the trust. We're going into the trust — which was the Hastings Park Trust that was established in 1889, I believe — and we are conferring all of the powers, all of the rights that were from that particular trust agreement on the city of Vancouver. Am I missing anything there? I wonder if the minister could speak to that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is exactly right. All this does, really, is accede to the request of the city to have this kind of information in part of the agreement to recognize and realize the parameters of activities that have evolved over the years at the Hastings Park land. It will also allow the city to then move forward and engage in their visioning exercise. They are, I believe, very close to rolling out the details of that visioning exercise.

L. Mayencourt: In reading this, there are some conditions that are put forward under the trust. Later on in the bill, there are some that are attached to the Pacific National Exhibition. They look to me to be pretty similar in terms of the wording and what have you, so when I look at these ones that take place under section 2, it gives the city of Vancouver authorization under the trust to hold "…fairs, exhibitions, expositions, displays, shows, plays, concerts, sports, sporting events and public presentations of any kind." For the life of me, when I read that, I go: well, isn't that what they do already?

We have the ability "to hold race meetings involving mechanical devices or animals" — I don't know what kind of mechanical devices they're considering here — and to allow betting and that sort of thing. I look at that and I go: well, is that what they're doing already? It seems to me that it is. I mean, we have Hastings Park racetrack. We have horses running the track, so it doesn't look like we're creating anything different. We can bet at those.

Then we can "provide entertainment, amusement and recreation to and for persons visiting the fairs, exhibitions, expositions, displays, shows, plays, concerts, sports, sporting events and public presentations referred to in subparagraph (i) and the race meetings referred to…" in the other paragraphs "…and to sell or otherwise furnish those persons with food, drinks, refreshments and other…." I don't see anything really sinister there. We're talking about somebody standing on a stage and performing, or someone doing maybe a juggling act to entertain people that come to the PNE or to Playland or what have you. I just don't see any-

Then it says here…. This is, I think, a really important one. As all members from Vancouver know, we have a wonderful film industry in British Columbia. I think we're up around a billion dollars annually in filming. This next section seems to allow for the PNE or Playland or Hastings Park to allow that to happen, and I think that's terrific. I know that many, many times I've gone down to Hastings Park and seen movie trucks there, the big trailers, and that's a really great thing. It's adding something to the community. I think the community benefits from that.

As a matter of fact, one year I did a little event down at Hastings Park that was really interesting, and we actually had the film industry contribute to that event. They probably wouldn't have done that if there wasn't a benefit to them, or maybe they would have. You know, the important thing is that the community that is in the film industry that is permitted to use Hastings Park now has already stepped up to bat and helped us with this. I don't see anything wrong with that.

To be able to "charge fees, including, without limitation, admission fees…." You know, as long as I've been alive, somebody's been at the gate to take my money, and it's always been reasonable. I trust that it will be. Certainly, the city of Vancouver will have some involvement, I would think, in that.

To "award, give or pay prizes, medals and honorary decorations…." I think we do that already. I think some of those honorary decorations that are referred to here might belong, rightfully so, to some of those community activists that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has spoken about. I think there is some wonderful opportunity there — obviously, the medals for the various races, pay prizes and so on. I don't see very much there that's sinister.

Then I get to sub-subsection (b), and it says you can do gaming there. You can have betting of some sort. Those basically have to be approved by the Gaming Control Act.

I just don't understand what the debate for the last two and a half days really has been about. We're simply saying to the people of the city of Vancouver that you can't be sued because of what they've been doing at Hastings Park for the last 100 years or so. Am I right about that? We're basically trying to protect the citizens of Vancouver from some frivolous lawsuit down the road because in 1966 they had a horse race or in 1954 they had, God forbid, a logging exhibition or they let someone shoot a movie in 1997. This is what we are trying to do. We're trying to make sure that back in the history, the people of Vancouver are not going to have a frivolous lawsuit to deal with. Is that really what this is about?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the hon. member has identified this situation perfectly. What, indeed, we do by laying out in specifics all the different events and activities you correctly itemized is, in fact, confirm the evolution of activities that have taken place at that site for over the past 120 years. I think you've nailed it right on the head. That is exactly what's happening. These are existing activities that currently take place. This was added, of course, at the request of the city to ensure that all of those activities that have evolved over the 100-plus years are recognized as part of the use and enjoyment the citizens and the public have enjoyed at that particular Hastings Park land. You're exactly right.

L. Mayencourt: I'm glad to hear that. I think the people of Vancouver need to know that in this bill, we're offering them some form of protection, some form of assurance that we're not unloading a white elephant on them or we're not unloading a legal problem on the good citizens of the city of Vancouver. We're not laying it out for them so that they can be subject to some sort of lawsuit because of the variety of activities that have historically occurred there.

I think it's really important that we do that. I think one of the things I would be concerned about as a citizen of Vancouver would be: "We're getting this park. Are there going to be some leftover legal problems that somehow we've inherited?" I am grateful to the minister for giving us that clarification, for making it clear to the citizens of the city of Vancouver.

I want to talk just for a moment about this consultation. You know, I really trust in Larry Campbell. I think he's done some really terrific things for the city of Vancouver. We've had some very cooperative relationships with the city of Vancouver.

I can recall the Woodwards site. The city of Vancouver wanted to take ownership of that and be able to manage that within their own community. You know, they've gone through a very, very extensive visioning process for the city of Vancouver with respect to the Woodwards Building, and I think that's terrific. I dare say they've had hundreds of submissions, some at the Carnegie and some at any number of sites in the downtown east side where people gather. There's been an opportunity for people to have a real ability to give some input.

I was surprised by some of the comments from the Leader of the Opposition as to how she's going to hold their feet to the fire because she doesn't really think they're going to do that consultation. Clearly, she doesn't think they're going to do it, from her questions in this Legislature.

What assurances do you as a minister have? Other than the press release, what assurances do you have that the city of Vancouver will in all good faith be consulting with the residents of Vancouver and, perhaps even more broadly than that, with people that are truly affected? I don't think it's just the city of Vancouver.

I look at the number. I think there are about a million people that visit the PNE every year, and we've only got 500,000 or so in Vancouver — maybe 580,000 or something like that — so that means that people are coming from all over. Since this issue of trust has been

raised, what kind of assurances do you have as a minister that I can give to my constituents and that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant can give to her constituents that there will be ample consultation with the citizens at least of Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: To answer the hon. member, I think that one of the most important assurances one can receive is a political commitment given clearly and forthrightly by a political leader. In the case of the Hastings Park and PNE site, the mayor of Vancouver, Mayor Larry Campbell, who I have a great deal of respect for, actually…. I think Mayor Campbell has done a very admirable job in trying to meet the challenges as he sees them. Mayor Campbell was quoted as saying….

Hon. K. Falcon: Perhaps the member for Vancouver-Hastings might listen, because when you keep talking, you miss the opportunity to hear some of these things that actually are factual and could be helpful to you.

J. MacPhail: I'm just caught by leaders keeping promises. I'm stuck on that one.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know you're stuck on that. Keeping promises was a challenge for the member.

Let me just say this. This is from the mayor of Vancouver: "We welcome the opportunity to work with the community and other stakeholders to build on their vision for the PNE and its role within the park." There is a clear political statement of direction from the mayor of Vancouver. That certainly should give solace to not just the member for Vancouver-Burrard but also to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who I know will feel solace in knowing that there's at least another couple of years of consultations that will take place in her city, which she can eagerly take part in.

L. Mayencourt: I am very grateful to the minister for that comment. As he was giving it, there was some difficulty in hearing it because the member for Vancouver-Hastings was heckling about a number of things — about a crisis of trust really, about leadership. I'm not really sure what has happened. Perhaps the minister might know why the member for Vancouver-Hastings is questioning the integrity of the mayor of the city of Vancouver, his leadership or his commitments.

J. MacPhail: I've never done that. There's no record of it, and I'd ask him to withdraw, please.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, point of order. I asked him. There is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever, and I ask him to withdraw.

The Chair: Will the member for Vancouver-Burrard please withdraw that comment.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll do that, if that will quell the opposition.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, I'm very sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, unconditionally. I would be happy to do so.

L. Mayencourt: One of the things I have been trying to drive home here, and I want to make it really clear, is that we have a record of Mayor Campbell making a commitment and following through on it. I don't know what has the Leader of the Opposition so worked up about consultation, that the consultation will somehow not happen. I guess that's my point. I apologize to her if I've offended her, but I don't know why she feels this consultation isn't going to happen. That really confuses me. I guess I'll remain confused on it. I do not wish to offend her or make unparliamentary comments or what have you, but I do worry about that. I wonder what the root of all that is.

I happen to believe that the consultation will take place. I have it from the minister, I have it in this bill, and I have the word of the mayor of the city of Vancouver. I think that's what I needed to know. I really appreciate that, so I'll thank the minister very much for that quick clarification.

This is a very interesting section. Even though the government is merely trying to clarify, in their own words, what the Hastings Trust is all about, the importance of this section has taken on new meaning because of an exchange that just occurred between the minister and the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard suggested, you know: let's do away with frivolous lawsuits — like, what the meaning of the trust is would be perhaps a frivolous lawsuit. Or if this government decides to rip up park and pave it so that they can put more slot machines in a building, is that okay? When the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, "To get rid of frivolous lawsuits — is that why this government is bringing in this legislation?" the minister said: "Yes, absolutely. That's correct."

Well, not only do we have a whole rewriting of the Hastings Park Trust without any consultation from the community — or the city of Vancouver, I might add — now we have a retroactivity clause to 1889. This section 3 says…. Let me read this:

Is that, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, necessary to get rid of frivolous lawsuits?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what subsections 3(1) to 3(4) do is combine to validate the original trust and the land grant and the activities and uses relating to the land grant that have taken place and evolved over the 120-plus years, and to retroactively authorize any resolutions, bylaws and actions of the city of Vancouver in relation to Hastings Park.

J. MacPhail: I have no idea why the Hastings Park Trust needed validation. Why did it need validation and what section of this…? This is a retroactivity clause. Section 2 is this government's interpretation of validating the Hastings Park Trust. This is, pure and simple, a retroactivity clause, which says that no matter what happened in the past, it's deemed nobody can challenge that going forward or nobody can challenge what's going forward on the basis of what happened in the past. That's what this clause says.

This is particularly relevant given the fact that the trust in no way talks about greenspace being one of the uses of the park. Somehow these Liberal MLAs think the community has said that it all has to be greenspace. No member of any community has ever said that. They understand mixed use, but according to this government, mixed use doesn't include active greenspace.

This clause, clause 3, says that you cannot challenge going forward on the basis of anything that's happened to date. Why?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I tried to explain in my last answer, what this does is actually validate all the activities that have been taking place at the Hastings Park site for lo these many years. This continues to emphasize those activities that have taken place.

The additional clauses that were read by the member were actually clauses that were requested by the city so that they could tighten this down and have certainty around what is allowed under the amended Hastings Park Trust so they could move forward with their visioning exercise.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. When this minister is referring to the city, he is not referring to the elected members of the city council or the elected members of the Vancouver Parks Board at all. I will be voting against this clause, because in the past members of the

community — those that support greening of the space, those that support the PNE, those that support activities — have used the Hastings Park Trust language to promote, bargain, negotiate community input on land use at Hastings Park.

All of that with a stroke of a pen by this clause now means that the community cannot use history, past practices, public debate or public meetings to any extent to determine future use of the park there. That is a sad, sad day.

J. MacPhail: This is a very interesting section. Let me read it into the record:

Boy, this undoes all of that bravado that the Liberal MLAs were up about this being turned over to the city, because the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the Liberal cabinet. Here we have a clause that completely undermines everything every Liberal MLA has said in the House to date about how this is turning it over to the community, to the city.

Gosh, we're all the way out to Maple Ridge–Mission in the input that the community is going to have. I'd love to be able to get input into…. As a resident of Vancouver, I'd like to get input into the parks in Maple Ridge–Mission. What balderdash for that member for Maple Ridge–Mission to stand up and say: "Everybody who's ever attended the park should have input into it." We don't get that reciprocal arrangement in his community.

Here we have a clause that puts the lie to all of the government's assertions that they're giving this to the city of Vancouver. What possible reason could there be that this clause allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations allowing uses and activities at Hastings Park, and how is that not double jeopardy for the citizens of Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, there are actually two reasons. One is that we as a province have not abrogated responsibility for the trust, nor will we. The second thing that the member needs to know is that the city asked for this because if, down the road, there is a future use that is not envisioned in the expanded parameters that were outlined under the previous section 2(a) to (f), then the province could, if requested by the city, make such regulatory changes as may be required for the city to undertake whatever activity it is that it wishes to see.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as we've been around this mulberry bush many times, it was brought forward by the duly appointed staff of the city of Vancouver under the direction of council to engage in the negotiations as such that would be required to complete the transfer of the Hastings Park Trust lands operation over to the city.

J. MacPhail: I just want the chamber to know that every time the minister stands up and says "the city," there's a clarification e-mail that comes which says it wasn't the elected people. I find it very interesting that somehow this government says it's not going to abrogate the upholding of the trust. Yet they've said: "Oh, we're outta here. We don't need to be responsible for it. Why would we have communicated with anybody in Vancouver anywhere? Why would we have communicated with the citizens of Vancouver-Hastings or, indeed, the citizens of Vancouver-Burrard? It's not our job; it's the job of the city. They've now got responsibility for the trust."

Now we have the minister standing up and saying: "Oh no. If we want to make changes to that trust, we will as a government. And more importantly, we'll do it behind closed doors." There was another way that this government could have done exactly what the minister claims he now retains the right to do. He could bring in legislation and change the trust. But no, he completely puts the lie to his saying that he's out of it and that's the reason why he didn't need to consult with anybody on the changes to the trust. It completely puts the lie to that claim — by section 4 and his own words saying: "Oh no. We'll change the trust if we

Mr. Chair, I'll tell you, if there's any clause that the members from Vancouver should stand up and vote against, it's this clause.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, of course, that is continuing in the grand tradition of spewing utter nonsense, because that's what it is. In fact, you know, if the member would just actually read this stuff and understand and listen to what I say, it might prove helpful for you not having to stand up and thereby disavow everything I've just said.

The reason we didn't bring in legislation — as the member was quick to wave her hand, holding on to what I assume is some piece of legislation — is because that's not what the city wanted. This was actually a request from the representatives of the city council. This was what they wanted: the ability to, should a change be required…. A regulation would be required from the provincial cabinet — done through, of course, OIC — that actually is public and transparent and available for folks to see what that is. That's absolutely consistent with what the city of Vancouver wanted.

Again, we just keep coming back to this issue. Apparently the member opposite doesn't have confidence in the mandate that the council in Vancouver gave to their staff to negotiate an agreement. If she has those kinds of concerns, go take them to her friends on city council and tell them she doesn't have confidence in the decision they made to empower their civil servants to come to an agreement. I'm sorry she's upset with it.

I actually think and continue to believe that this is very, very positive for the residents of Vancouver. I can't wait until that wonderful visioning exercise starts so that all of the residents of Vancouver from all different parts of Vancouver, including the west side where the member resides, can take part in that particular visioning exercise and have a positive contribution to the future of this site.

J. MacPhail: Here's who I'll stand beside. I'll stand by the citizens of my riding. That's who I'll stand with. If it's the provincial government using their authority behind closed doors to dismiss the wishes of my community, I'll stand with my community. If it's the city council that does the same, I'll stand with my community. It is absolutely reprehensible that this minister somehow thinks that making decisions, in collusion or not with any other level of government, against the wishes of a community is okay by him. That's what he thinks is okay. Isn't it interesting how this minister thinks that the wishes of officials to officials is what should guide the future use of the only park of any substance in East Vancouver? Isn't that nice, who he sides with?

Mr. Chair, even though the minister likes to take cheap shots about where I live, I'm actually not running for re-election again, and therefore the person who takes over, I think, will be guaranteed a safe seat. The New Democrat who takes over will be guaranteed a safe seat by the reprehensible actions of this government.

L. Mayencourt: I appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. She raises some points, and I want to check them out, so I look at section 4, which states that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. Now, when you go to the Interpretation Act, it's pretty clear on what basis the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do that.

It says: "If an enactment provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or any other person may make regulations, the enactment must be construed as empowering the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or that other person, for the purpose of carrying out the enactment according to its intent." In other words, the spirit of this particular bill, if I'm reading this correctly, is to "make regulations as are considered necessary and advisable, are ancillary to it, and are not inconsistent with it," and in subsection (b), "provide for administrative and procedural matters for which no express, or only partial, provision has been made."

In other words, if we haven't covered everything, then we can go back in and clarify it on behalf of the city of Vancouver. My understanding from the minister is that the city of Vancouver wants to have us do this, because they may not have the power to change it. As much as we want to work with them, this will allow that. The important thing is that it has to be consistent with the enactment. It has to be, according to its intent….

L. Mayencourt: The Leader of the Opposition just raised another point. I might get to that one in a minute.

Anyway, subsection (c) says: "…limit the application of a regulation in time or place or both." In other words, we could create a regulation, I guess, that might endure for a particular period of time to suit the purposes of the city of Vancouver, and so on. I mean, the real point here I want to make is that you can't look at this act in isolation. The Leader of the Opposition is quite well informed about that and knows that.

When I look at section 41 of the Interpretation Act, which is specifically mentioned here, it says that you've got to stick with the intent of the act. It has to be consistent with the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish. In other words, the deal that we're making here with the city of Vancouver has to be the deal, and the only thing that allows the cabinet to do anything with this would be if it were consistent with this enactment. Am I right?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, you're absolutely right. Under 4(1), that is exactly what it says. It says…. Well, actually, let me paraphrase. Essentially, it allows the Lieutenant-

Governor-in-Council to make general regulations with regard to the act for the purpose of carrying out the act, according to its intent. That's exactly what that member suggested. The member….

Hon. K. Falcon: Although I've not been officially asked the question, I did hear the member for Vancouver-Hastings yell out something that sounded suspiciously like a question. She asked about subsection 4(2), and subsection (2) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations authorizing further uses and activities of the Hastings Park Trust lands. That was put in there by request of the city of Vancouver.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Vancouver-Hastings says: "Who cares?" Well, actually, some people might care, because you're constantly trying to make the implication that somehow we've drafted this in some way as to do something negative to the city of Vancouver.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings needs to spend a little time reading the act and understanding what it means — the Interpretation Act. I highly refer her to it. The member for Vancouver-Burrard seems to know it quite well, and I think it will be very helpful for her as she comes to an increasing awareness of just how positive this change will be for the residents of Vancouver as they undertake that visioning exercise which will allow them and all the stakeholders to have input into the future of these great lands.

J. MacPhail: Well, if the minister somehow thinks that his interpretation of the role of city council will in some way get me to back off about a piece of legislation that completely undermines not only the community I live in but the city of Vancouver…. Unlike what the member for Vancouver-Burrard said about his community being shut out of consultations in the 1990s, he's dead wrong. They were open, they were public, they were in community centres, and people from all around Vancouver came. Sports organizations came, boys and girls organizations came, and business community people came. Citizens came from all around the city.

Somehow the minister thinks that his upholding of the fact that some bureaucrats in the back room — all bureaucrats for whom I have the greatest of respect — cut a deal and that I'm supposed to say, as the member responsible for the community of Vancouver-Hastings: "Oh well, then that's fine…." Sorry, my interest lies with the community that I represent, that I've lived in for 20 years and that my child grew up in.

Let's just be clear about this minister trying to somehow suggest that this government doesn't have the right to make regulations about anything. Section 4(1) is limited by the Interpretation Act, but then 4(2) says "Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations allowing uses of and activities at Hastings Park."

When the minister was reading from his briefing book, he read it correctly, saying that the section can provide for additional uses and activities at Hastings Park. It's got nothing to do with the spirit of the legislation. It's about additional uses that so far have not been listed in the legislation.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly right. You know, the city wants to ensure that it has the ability to consider other options that may not have been considered — greening the entire site, for example. It would allow the further uses that go beyond that which is explained in section 2(a) to (f). Some of that visioning exercise could include what I think I hear the member saying, which seems to be her preference — that the whole site should be greened. If that was what was to come out of the visioning exercise, this makes sure they will have the capability to actually do that so that the provincial government won't be a barrier, so that we can amend the regulation to allow them to do exactly that.

What I think it does, again, is give the city the power and the ability to have some flexibility in ensuring that as they undertake that visioning exercise, they will have the ability to respond to what they hear in that visioning exercise.

L. Mayencourt: First, I want to comment on some of the stuff I just heard here from the Leader of the Opposition. One, "Who cares?" I care; my community cares. Everybody in this chamber cares about this particular thing, because we take this pretty darn seriously. It is something where we want to reflect what our community is telling us they want us to do.

I am the member for Vancouver-Burrard; she is the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Members across there are from Delta, etc. We come to this House as members representing our communities, but there are other communities we also represent that I think are equally valid. For example, I feel some sort of obligation to do what is right for the residents of Vancouver, whether they live in Mount Pleasant, Hastings, Kensington or Kingsway — wherever they happen to be.

This city council was elected just one year ago. They clearly have a mandate from the people of the city of Vancouver to go out and do what they need to do. They have been wanting this — and not just this council. Previous councils have wanted the ability to have more of an effect on Hastings Park, on the PNE, on Playland. They have all wanted that. This act allows that.

Under this particular section, there could be something that is unforeseen. If I am taking it right, as I read

it here in the Interpretation Act, which has been around for a little while, it's simply going to allow us to deal with unforeseen circumstances. What kind of unforeseen circumstances? Do you know what? Ten years ago we didn't have roller-blades. Now we have a roller-blade area at the PNE.

So there are many uses that we cannot anticipate. There's a new form of Frisbee. It's an extreme sport; it's almost the same as a….

It's almost the same as a football game, and it's a very important…. It's a new sport, and that could happen at Hastings Park. Is there some way this could be stopped? Yes, I think the member for Vancouver-Hastings has implied that. If we change anything to do with the Hastings Trust, we are somehow disempowering the people who worked so hard to put greenspace in that park.

Do you know what? We've already done some of the greening of it; a third is already done. The community seems pretty darn happy with it. The community seems to be okay with the new use of having roller-bladers there, the new use of having skateboarders there. Somewhere down the road there may be some newfangled sport invented that they might want to have, or they may want to do something more in the entertainment field that couldn't be contemplated in today's thing.

I trust this would be an okay section, and I am going to vote in favour of it. To the minister: I wonder if consideration has been given to making those regulations in open cabinet.

The Chair: The question was, minister, whether the regulations could be made in open cabinet.

L. Mayencourt: That's the end of my questions on this section. I appreciate the answers.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move the amendment to section 12 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 83, Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 83, Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, read a third time and passed.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes to create the Private Managed Forest Land Act. This bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation initiative. The bill also underscores government's goals of operating more efficiently and responsibly managing the province's natural resources.

In 2001 the core services review of the forest land reserve concluded that the reserve's land use controls did not serve a compelling public interest. The public, however, retains an interest in encouraging landowners to manage their land in a way that protects public environmental values and promotes reforestation. This bill follows through on the government's commitment to create a mechanism for the continued regulation of forest practices on private land assessed as managed forest while eliminating the forest land reserve.

I will briefly describe the proposed legislation. The legislation would create a new governing council representing an innovative partnership of members appointed by government and by private forest landowners to oversee the regulation of forest practices on private managed forest land. A regulation of the council will set out specific standards to address key public environmental values, including soil conservation, critical wildlife habitat, fish habitat and drinking water quality. The council's regulation will reflect the standards currently contained in the private land forest practices regulation administered by the Agricultural Land Commission. The governing council will have the power to conduct independent audits of forest practices; to work with landowners to resolve problems; to issue stop-work orders and remediation orders should environmental damage occur; and to levy penalties if necessary, including fines up to a maximum of $25,000. Penalties and orders of council can be appealed by the landowner to the Forest Appeals Commission.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will continue to play a role in assessing critical wildlife habitat and setting water quality objectives. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also specify that a contravention of certain regulations under the act constitutes an offence. In such a case, the province may prosecute on the basis of the offence and the courts may levy a penalty against convicted persons up to $5,000. Landowners choosing to participate in the program will receive reduced property taxation already provided for under the managed forest class, a reduction in school tax and a protected right to harvest without unreasonable restrictions by local governments. In exchange, landowners must agree to manage their lands to protect public environmental values and to promptly reforest harvested areas, as well as paying for the cost of the council's operation.

Participation in the program is voluntary, although a charge will apply to landowners that exit the program prior to a specified term. This provision will discourage the misuse of managed forest class as a temporary tax shelter by landowners intent on developing their properties for non-forest uses. The council may also recommend to B.C. Assessment that managed forest assessment be withdrawn, as a penalty for significant or consistent contraventions of the act and regulations.

Public accountability will be reinforced in several ways. The minister may order an independent audit of the governing council's performance. If necessary, the government may prescribe the process by which landowners are appointed to the council. Additionally, the governing council must publish an annual report on their activities. All activities of the council will be made public through the publication of the annual report.

Bill 88 demonstrates this government's ability to responsibly manage the province's natural resources in partnership with those being regulated while decreasing administrative costs and complexity. I am pleased to present this bill in the House today.

J. MacPhail: I am rising to comment on Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act, which we are now debating at second reading. This piece of legislation repeals and replaces the Forest Land Reserve Act and the structure in which the forest land reserve was managed. I want to just go over a bit of history to put my remarks in context.

In 1994 the Forest Land Commission was established to minimize the impact of urban and rural development on B.C.'s commercial forest land base. The intent of the government at the time and of creating the forest land reserve was to provide an open and accountable process for the conversion of managed forest land to urban or even rural development but not forestry.

Last year this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management brought in Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which repealed the fundamental purposes of the forest land reserve. The overhaul of that system now is complete with this Bill 88, and a direct result of that is a net loss of accountability and openness in favour of deregulation. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, let's discuss a few other items before we reach a conclusion about whether that net loss of accountability and openness in favour of deregulation makes sense.

Previously, under the Forest Land Reserve Act there were sections spelling out the mandatory consul-

tation process with local governments, and there were also opportunities for public involvement when one was going to change the status of land within the forest land reserve. Under the system that existed with that forest land reserve, the Agricultural Land Commission had the authority to provide notice to the public and to hold public meetings and hearings on land use issues. I think it was called the agricultural and forest land reserve commission. I think we actually changed the name of it, but if not, the Agricultural Land Commission was given the responsibility of designating and changing land use for the forest land reserve as well.

Under this new system, though, the owners create a management plan for approval by the council, but there is now no statutory requirement at all for any public input. This represents a significant departure from the openness and accountability promised in the New Era document, and I would submit it's a step back.

There's really an element here that should not come as any surprise. The public shouldn't be surprised that this is the direction the government's taking, especially when it comes to legislation put forward by this particular minister, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Whether it's managed forest land or the environmental assessment process, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management has done all he can to eliminate the ability of the public to be involved in any of those processes. That's my first comment on this legislation.

I'd like to shift gears just a bit and move on to another area of Bill 88, the legislation we're now debating, the Private Managed Forest Land Act. I want to explore this bill in relation to all the other forestry legislation that this government has brought in. Of course, as I've made the point before, that forestry legislation is becoming quite a pile. This is probably the eleventh or twelfth piece of legislation making changes to forestry, and some of those 11 or 12 pieces have been to undo the first pieces of legislation that this government brought in. So I must tell you, it's been quite a challenge trying to keep it all straight.

I don't really know how the forestry companies or the workers in the forest industry are supposed to figure it all out. In fact, conversations I've had in forest-dependent communities would make that point exactly. They are in a state of complete confusion about what the exact legislative direction is that this government is taking in this year of the forests — or this year of forestry, as the Premier declared.

We've seen several pieces of legislation come and go, and the end result is anything but clear. We've seen countless amendments, and we've even seen amendments to amendments. Now, I want to just make note that this minister isn't unique in making amendments to amendments to legislation that hasn't even come into force and effect. He's joined by many of his other colleagues in the executive council. It is particularly noteworthy that in this very important area of our economy — forestry — and with this Premier declaring 2003 the year of forestry, it does seem a bit dismaying that there are so many changes and movement back and forth by this government, with no clear and focused outcome.

It really is fair, I submit, to say that this government has not done anything to help simplify the regulatory regime of the forestry sector. It just keeps getting more complex, and people out there in the forestry sector are struggling every day to keep up. Bill 88, this piece of legislation, does nothing to clear up this situation. In fact, I would submit that Bill 88 appears to muddy the waters even more with some very contradictory intentions, and those are what I am going to discuss now.

Last fall government caucus MLA after government caucus Liberal MLA rose to their feet to praise the Forests minister under the new Forest and Range Practices Act. They were all so proud that the government was getting rid of all those bad "business-killing regulations of that decade of decline," as they like to say. In their place, the government brought in a results-based — or really, more to the point, a risk-based — regime that put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Now, there are two distinct parts of Bill 88 that tie into this aspect of the forestry story. This bill establishes the private managed land council. Its mandate will be to make regulations about forest practice standards that apply on privately owned forest land. There is no guarantee in this legislation that the interests of the public will be included in the council, which will be composed of ministerial appointees and private land owners. That's what this legislation declares will be the membership of this private managed land council.

As we can see already, there's no legislative guarantee that the public will have a role in the development or approval of management plans on private forested lands, whereas they did before. Instead, we could see a system where the fox is in fact guarding the henhouse. This is very consistent with the government's new approach to forestry in B.C. So while I'm critical of the direction, I'm giving them kudos for consistency at least.

However, that's where the similarities stop, and they stop right around section 12 of the act. I have to tell you, it's not a big piece of legislation compared to some of the other forestry bills we've had. It's not that big, so I must say that as I was reading the legislation and got to part 3 of the Private Managed Forest Land Act, I was completely taken aback. "Quelle surprise," I said, looking at it. That means "what a surprise." I was completely taken aback by what direction the government is taking under part 3. With all the Liberal MLA government caucus members blustering against regulations and the horrible years of the NDP, part 3 of this legislation clearly lays out regulated values for private land that are absolutely consistent with the work done by the previous government.

I am taken aback that what was good for the private land owners is exactly what was in place in the 1990s — but for all lands. I thought: "Oh my gosh. This must fly, this has to fly, this does fly in the face of the new results-based code that this government is so wont to champion."

I can hardly wait, actually, for the debate at second reading by the government caucus members about what they have to say now — that for the management of private lands we have a regulated system of very clearly articulated values that must apply. It doesn't matter who does it amongst the government caucus, but I can hardly wait for them to stand up and say, "Oh, the NDP in the 1990s had it right. We do need to regulate forestry companies," because that's what part 3 of this bill is about.

Let me just give an example, in case some are going to accuse me of rhetoric. It's not rhetoric. It's a clear reading of this legislation, and here's the example. Why else would there be a section on fish habitat in this legislation that defines objectives for private managed forest land with respect to — here it comes, Mr. Speaker — protection of fish habitat?

Here's what landowners, private land owners, must do. By this legislation they must protect a natural variation in water temperatures, sufficient cover for fish, a continual source of large woody debris…. And the list just goes on and on. They're very clearly regulated values that apply to private lands. They're prescribed, and that's the term that the government caucus members hated: "prescribed values." But here we are — prescribed values for private lands.

There are a number of very specific regulations articulated in this legislation, very specific statute requirements telling landowners what they can and cannot do on private land — from fish habitat to water quality and from soil conservation to wildlife habitat. This legislation spells out in detail what private land owners can and cannot do. In fact, it's a prescriptive group of regulations that will apply. I must say, it's all very interesting. This government is prepared to put public lands in the hands of a risk-based regime, but private land will be subjected to very specific prescribed regulations.

You know, if that old Soviet regime were still alive, I'd be thinking maybe it was moving over here to British Columbia, looking to take private lands and the value of private ownership and denigrate it by applying prescriptive regulations to private lands and, at the same time, allowing no such regulations on the publicly owned lands. But that regime is long since gone, so I must wonder that the Liberals perhaps don't have as clear a respect for private ownership as they would claim — that they want to, in their own interpretation, tie the hands behind the backs of private land owners by putting in a prescriptive group of regulations.

Or maybe it's something else. Maybe this contradiction can be explained in some other fashion, and maybe it's the first sign that the Liberal government is wrong in moving toward a risk-based regime in management of any forest lands. But Bill 88 is clear. It is in clear contradiction to all of the rhetoric this government has put forward on its forest policy to date.

The question is: does the Liberal government trust the private sector to manage our forests or not? This bill suggests there is some serious confusion within the Liberal government caucus on that matter. Maybe there isn't confusion, though. Maybe this is the first opportunity they've had in this Legislature to introduce legislation that actually demonstrates that they're not so sure about their changes to the Forest Practices Code. Maybe the big bad NDP had it right. After all, Bill 88 is a continuation of the regulatory regime that was in place before, under the previous administration — the regulatory regime that was there to protect critical values. I'm going to take it that way. I'm a positive, glass-half-full kind of gal, and I can tell you that I am going to take this as a sign — the first sign that this government recognizes that a risk-based, results-based code will not be the way to move.

I am very curious to see what happens when the new forest practices code of this government comes into force next year. As a result of this bill, there will be an uneven and contradictory regulatory environment between private and public land, and that's what this legislation does. It sets up a regulatory regime in direct contradiction to the Forest Practices Code that the government is using on public lands. Maybe we'll just see more legislation, more regulation, where the government takes a few substantial steps back from their moving toward a results-based forest practices code, and they'll actually see that our world-class reputation on forest management is as a result of the Forest Practices Code of the 1990s.

Anyway, I must say I wait with bated breath to hear the government caucus members stand up and defend Bill 88 as a prescriptive regulatory regime applying to private lands.

B. Suffredine: I'm one of those government members who is a little taken aback at the submission I've just heard. Coming from a lost decade, I can only assume the Leader of the Opposition is still lost in the woods. There are no forests in Vancouver-Hastings, public or private, that I'm aware of.

B. Suffredine: Yeah, it's probably the largest clearcut in British Columbia, as far as I've been told.

I think the Leader of the Opposition misses the essence of why we regulate or why we're putting forward regulation for private lands. There is no requirement, and there never has been, for the Forest Act to govern private land. When she speaks of there being no requirement for public input, that's because this is a voluntary system that invites owners of private land to come forward and sign a contract with the government that brings their land, which was not subject to the Forest Act, under the governance of government and to voluntarily sign up for some rules that will make sure there's an appropriate plan on their lands. These are fee simple lands; these aren't Crown lands.

Contrary to what she says, no plan has ever been required for a private owner to log his own land. No plan has ever been required for a private owner to re-

forest his own land. She speaks of this as if it's regulating forest companies. It's true that some private lands are owned by companies, and many of them are owned by individuals. I know that in my riding there's probably the largest single private owner of lands in the province. A company called Pluto Darkwoods owns a huge tract of land along Kootenay Lake between Creston and Nelson. It's probably almost as large as the West Arm wilderness park. They are a great example of a responsible company that manages private lands well and without any requirement for a plan.

There's also a company near Wynndel called Wynndel Box and Lumber, who for 90 years has run their company and owns a large tract of private land itself. It manages them very well. But that's not the case with every private owner, and it's often the non-forest companies, the individual owners who don't have a lot of capital, who do things that make us all unhappy.

Near Nelson — just out of Nelson but visible to Nelson — about ten years ago there was someone with some private land who clearcut it on a very steep hillside and caused lots of water problems for the neighbours below. There was a great big thing that looked like a "w" on the hillside, and it's still visible today. It was never reforested. The water problems that people below experienced haven't really been resolved. They had to fix them themselves, and there was effectively nothing that the government of the day, which was the NDP, could do about it. They had no way to control it.

From a personal point of view, I bought some land in the 1980s near Crawford Bay, which was land to be logged. It was in partnership with someone else who was logging it, but that's when I learned that once it was logged, the Forest Service simply had no ability to come and ask me to do things that would make the land better in their view. There was no requirement that I comply with forest standards of the day. There was also no incentive for me to do that. I looked at a number of ways of potentially reforesting it and growing things like Christmas trees on it — all kinds of opportunities. There was no incentive to do that. There was a huge disincentive too.

I discovered that because most of the land was logged in one year, the assessment authority assessed the value for timbered land not based on the amount of timber that was on it but based on the amount of timber that was taken off it in the previous year. So when this land was logged for the most part in one year, the assessment in the following year was huge. But the land value of a piece of 160 acres of hillside with all the timber gone was very little, because now it was really a cost to restore it and get it back to looking nice and being usable.

The taxation regime was the reverse of what it should have been. There was no requirement on me, as there is in this bill, to file a plan or deal with issues like soil conservation, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife habitat or reforesting. None of those issues were required in order to be able to log a piece of land, and they aren't today, until this comes into force, and they still won't be unless private owners, who under this bill are given the incentive that they can qualify for a little lower tax regime on their land taxes if they sign up and participate willingly in a managed system….

Now, to suggest that there has to be public input and that our public officials can't negotiate appropriately to protect wildlife values is nonsense. The incentive of the tax system, of being able to say, "My land qualifies just as agricultural land" — because that's really what it is…. It's growing a crop of trees. To make that make sense, so that I willingly want to comply with environmental standards on a voluntary basis and to make any land that I use in this way sustainable forever does nothing but make sense….

I say the bill is the opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition describes it as. It's something that actually brings in a logical regime. It invites private land owners to join in it, participate for a term, receive the benefits of an agricultural land type of taxation system and, in doing so, submit voluntarily to the environmental standards that they would otherwise be exempt from. So I support the bill and congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.

M. Hunter: I am very pleased to rise to speak in favour of this bill, because I think more than anywhere in the province, the issue of forestry on private lands is critical on Vancouver Island. I say that because there are large parts of Vancouver Island under forest cover today that were made private lands in the old E&N Railway land grant. This is perhaps the area of the province where this bill, the Private Managed Forest Land Act, Bill 88, will have most impact, so it's important for me to be able to speak to this bill and address some of the issues I see and some of the benefits I see from this particular legislation.

I think the Leader of the Opposition in her comments on this bill again acts a little bit like King Canute — or Queen Canute, I suppose. The tide is coming in. She thinks that government can do everything. Government can't. I for one cannot buy this notion that somehow government can do everything, that somehow audits and compliance as a limited role for government is inadequate, that we can have no trust in people who in this case actually own the land that forestry is taking place on.

I find that combination of lack of trust in people, lack of trust in a system of risk management, which is, frankly, not new…. I've spoken in this House on a number of occasions about risk management in various parts of our lives — be it food, be it the environment or be it our own personal activities. We're surrounded by risk, and we have to manage it. Government is no different, so this particular framework for managing private forest lands is, I think, quite appropriate. I'll try and explain why I think that.

First of all, I think we need and perhaps British Columbians around the province need to understand how important these private forest lands are in southern Vancouver Island and southeastern Vancouver

Island. They are extremely productive pieces of land. They come in all sizes. There are large landowners, including Weyerhaeuser and TimberWest, and there are very small landholders as well, some who hold…. I know in one particular case that I want to talk about, a landowner owns 30 hectares of land in my area of the province. I think these landowners, large or small, because they are owners of the land and have a long-term interest in the land and in the forest resources that occupy and grow upon that land, are extremely important people in our forest economy.

I want to tell the House a bit of a story. There is a gentleman who owns 30 hectares south of Nanaimo. His name is Jim Trebett, and I'm sure Jim will not mind my using his name in the House. I'll tell you why he won't mind. It's because he is an example of the kind of trust that we can and should place in private individuals to look after not only their own land but the public values we hold on land generally.

Jim has owned this piece of land for a number of years, and I had the opportunity to visit him about six months ago in the spring of the year. I was frankly amazed, because I've never been on a piece of land where the owner of the land knows every tree and knows how old it is. In fact, I said to Jim as we were walking around: "Do you give these trees names?" I mean, that's the kind of care and attention, the husbandry in the real sense of the word, that this particular individual puts into the land and the forest.

Every day Jim is out there looking after the land, making sure that things are being taken care of, and it's not just the trees. It's the water. It's the drainage ditches. It's the places where animals or birds are living and nesting and growing and reproducing. All those values that are important to people are, in this particular case of one individual, part of his ethics of land ownership. I think it's important that people understand that this commitment is out there, but it's not limited to the Jim Trebetts and other small private land owners.

I've had the opportunity of visiting some of the operations of the major landholders, and I want to refer to Weyerhaeuser just as an example of how important this issue of private forest land is in British Columbia. Just to give you a comparison of how Weyerhaeuser operates in British Columbia, their Crown timberland amounts to about a million hectares. From that million hectares they take about 5.3 million cubic metres of annual cut per year. On their private timberlands on Vancouver Island, by comparison, they own about 250,000 hectares, about a quarter of what they lease from the Crown. From that land they take between 1.7 million and 1.9 million cubic metres of annual cut, so for a quarter of the land base they get a third of the cut. The efficiency of the private lands and the husbandry that they are able to impose and practise on that land is impressive, and it's important from an economic point of view.

The private land base is worked much more heavily than the Crown-owned land is. There are incentives already there, and it's incentives that this bill is in many ways aimed at. It's an incentive for private land owners like Weyerhaeuser, like my friend Jim Trebett, to get some reward for what they do — to provide reward but to provide an incentive for them and others to keep doing this. It is a fact that not every private land owner is of the same opinion and the same practices. This bill is trying to provide an incentive so that we can have more people like Jim Trebett and more companies like Weyerhaeuser that are performing activities on the land base and in the forest, on their private lands, which is good for us, good for them and good for the plants and animals that we must share this province with.

You know, it's always interesting to me when we debate these issues, and I hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about how terrible things can be in the forest industry. I sometimes wonder if we even read our history books, if we look at how over time people have looked at incentives to improve land management. My own economic history learnings go back to English history and the enclosure acts of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that created the kind of incentives for private ownership of land and private husbandry — people looking after the land with some incentives — which, in a different way but with a similar purpose, is what this bill is trying to encourage.

The Leader of the Opposition is right. This is not completely new stuff, but it is to provide a new legislative framework in the context of all the other changes we've made to the Agricultural Land Commission and in forestry to actually provide consistency, not the inconsistency that she argued this bill introduces.

From what I have seen, my impression of what goes on, on private managed forest lands is something that we should be celebrating and encouraging. I think that we as government should not get in the way of people doing what they want to do on their private lands. But I do think that anything that helps provide incentives for people to do things right with respect to fish habitat and with respect to the management of other important values on private land is a good move. If at the same time — as I believe this bill does — we help create and maintain a competitive advantage for those people who harvest trees from their own private lands, then so much the better. To me, that's a bonus.

Let's be clear that the private forest landowners — the responsible private forest landowners — in this province are quite pleased with what they have seen in this bill. Why? Because it enables a group of private citizens who happen to be landowners, whose land happens to be under forestry and is available for forestry, to come together in an organized way that maintains their ability to market their products with the maximum economic advantage.

We all know that the marketing of B.C. forest products, whether it's from public or private land, is an activity in transition. Ten years ago, at the most 15 years ago, nobody had heard of certification of forestry practices. Today it is very clear in the certification of forest products that the company that has cut the wood has

done so in ways that meet various standards — some imposed by governments, some by third parties who are private. That certification seal on a Tetra-Pak in Europe means something. It means you can actually put your products into that market.

Private forest landowners are no different than the general population of people who practise forestry in this province. We should do and are doing things under this bill to help them maintain if not completely create a competitive advantage, which is hugely important. I can tell you that the small landowners, the Jim Trebetts of this world, are equally anxious to be able to sell their products, even though the volume is smaller, into the same markets that the larger corporations do. I am pleased this bill moves us in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, by debating and going to approve this bill, we are providing another leg up to private forest managers. This is about enabling and encouraging the managers and owners of those lands to do what they are doing and to do it better. From people whose properties you can walk over to people whose properties require sophisticated GIS mapping to see what's going on, from top to bottom, from small to large, this bill has a singular purpose: to maintain and improve the incentives that will make sure this section of our forest industry is actually enabled, by a system of incentives, to move forward into the twenty-first century.

G. Trumper: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 88. Most of the private forest land is on Vancouver Island, and it has a great impact on the communities on the Island. Where I live and in my constituency we have Weyerhaeuser and TimberWest, which contribute a great deal to the economy of the area and to the province.

Over the years there has been concern raised by citizens on the Island regarding the management of private lands. There have been concerns raised in the past over water issues, access issues and the actual care of the land. I'm really pleased to see this act at second reading. The private land owners have had a lot of consultation on and have participated in putting this act together, and they have taken the view that because it is private forest land — and it's the same land as the land I own — there is a benefit for them to be part of the situation in the province where people can see the standards they are working towards and to alleviate many of the concerns some people have.

I know in my area, for instance, that TimberWest has spent a great deal of time dealing with residents whose water comes from their particular land. Some years ago I think their water was affected by logging that took place in non-private land areas. It does have a great impact on the value with the farming. TimberWest has taken an incredible amount of time in speaking to the landowners and making sure that the concerns of the landowners have been addressed with their water licences.

We have the Log Train Trail, which is about 20 kilometres and used to be an old railway line on which all the lumber was pulled out of the valley many, many years ago. It is now a hiking trail and cycling trail, but it does traverse some of TimberWest's property. They have used that trail to bring out some of their lumber on their trucks these days.

I was through that trail just recently looking to see what the status of it was, because certainly people were concerned that the Log Train Trail, which actually comes under the purview of the Minister of Transportation….. They were concerned about what the condition of it would be. TimberWest has taken its responsibility very seriously and has made sure the part they've been using has certainly been well maintained, and if any improvements had to be made due to their own vehicles having been on it, they've taken that into consideration. They've been really good community citizens.

About a month ago I was very pleased to be able to take a tour of Weyerhaeuser's private lands, which are mainly on the east coast of Vancouver Island but do come partly into the Cameron Valley. I think it was an eye-opener for those of us who went on that tour. There were three MLAs. The MLA for Nanaimo-Parksville, the MLA for Nanaimo and myself had this tour over their private lands, and it really was very encouraging to see the way that they managed those lands. We went to some logging sites to see where they were doing specific logging and the care they were taking in dealing with some old-growth trees, which they were not touching, and how they were working around that. Then to fly over the areas they have harvested at some time and replanted, and to see how it's growing with the care they take, I think, is a testament to the care they give to their private lands.

When it's private lands, you do look after it. If a forest company, whether it's large or small, wishes to be able to sell its land at some time, if it's in a good condition and has good forestry prospects, they're obviously going to do much better in a sale of their lands. I was privileged some years ago to go to Sweden on a forestry tour, and earlier this year I was in New Zealand and had the opportunity to tour forestry sites. Many people know that in Sweden most of the forest land is privately owned, and it certainly is in New Zealand as well. If you look at those lands and how they have looked after them…. I know that for years we've heard so often how the standards of forestry in Sweden were better than ours — which is completely untrue; we probably have the best forest standards in the world — but that is private land.

Those who own the private land invest in it. In New Zealand they have a different type of forestry, but it's private land, and the companies invest in it to see the returns that they get. It's very encouraging to see that the companies are buying into this, that they will have a council that will be made up of two members of their companies and two members appointed by the province who will oversee this. They have very specific rules they will abide by. It is creating a public-private partnership with the provincial government to manage the private lands, but I want to point out what they have to do on the financial and corporate matters.

The council must publish an annual report for each year of operation that will contain the information about the following: the number of owners, the number of hectares subject to the act, the number of management commitments withdrawn, the number and nature of inspections performed, the number and nature of consent agreements, the amount of penalties collected and the amount of penalties owing, the number and nature of remediation orders made, the number and nature of stop-work orders made and the new regulations enacted by the council.

These are really very strong rules that the private land owners, if they become part of this, have to abide by. That means they are looking after the water, they are looking after the streams, they are looking after the fish habitat, and they are looking after the condition of the soil. I know that probably the majority of landowners will buy into this. They are responsible keepers of their land. There is an incentive for them to participate in this.

There may well be some who will not participate, but they will not be able to take advantage of the tax incentive that is there and which I am sure many people will consider. Today, when business is tough in the forest industry, as we all know, I am quite sure the companies and the landowners that will be involved in this are very careful about how they manage their land, and they obviously want to get the best results from it.

I really do look forward to seeing this act put in place. It's a great opportunity. It will certainly alleviate many of the concerns that people over the years have had regarding private lands. They are responsible owners, large and small, and I know that by taking some of the issues such as soil conservation and the quality of water very, very seriously, which so many people are concerned about today, this will be a benefit not only to the companies but to the province as a whole. I'm very pleased to support this act.

B. Bennett: Delightful to be here. Good evening. I'm speaking briefly in favour of the Private Managed Forest Land Act. We have a company in the East Kootenay called Tembec, which owns a very large piece of private land. It's interesting how the people who live in the region use that piece of private land just the same way they use Crown land. I don't know what it's like in other regions, but I certainly commend the owners of that private land for allowing access to it for the people who live in the region.

The act is, I think, an excellent example of taking various pieces of legislation and government policy and combining them in a way that accomplishes the original goals of the original legislation that this is replacing. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving credit where credit is due. The people who originally came up with the concept of having private forest landowners comply with some of the government regulations with regard to forestry on their private land…. I think that was a good idea, and I'm glad to see that we're going to carry on giving private land owners the opportunity to subject themselves voluntarily, for a relatively modest benefit in terms of the tax break they get, to managing their land in a way that is respectful of their neighbours. There's obviously more public land in the province than there is private land, and a lot of folks live downstream of private land. The concept is excellent, and I'm glad to see that we're carrying on.

I think this act is an excellent example of how this government is able to take a good idea and do it better than it was being done before. I'm surprised, actually, to hear the Leader of the Opposition commenting on the environmental objectives that exist in the new legislation in this bill. It may be that she doesn't understand how results-based regulation works, although I doubt that. I've come to know the Leader of the Opposition a little bit through my committee work, and I think there's very little she doesn't understand. I don't understand why she said what she said, but I think it's worth clarifying. The objects in sections 12, "Soil conservation," 13, "Water quality," 14, "Fish habitat," 15, "Critical wildlife habitat," and 16, "Reforestation," are all obviously important objectives for any forest company to operate under, whether they're on private land or public land.

If these objectives were fleshed out into the myriad of regulations that exist in the current Forest Practices Code created by the former government, they would take up — I can tell you — a lot more than one page in the bill.

What these objects do is create goals or minimums for private forest landowners, forest companies operating on forest land, to comply with. I think there's a great improvement that comes with this piece of legislation in terms of the forest operators meeting these objectives. That is the opportunity for the council, which is made up of 50 percent from government appointees and 50 percent from the forest sector, to come up with the different regulations that will help operators meet these various objectives. I see that as nothing but positive.

The other thing I wanted to just mention in speaking in favour of the act is the way the minister and his staff consulted with the Private Forest Landowners Association. I had the opportunity to speak to them in June in my riding. They held their AGM in Fernie. I went and spoke to them. I actually had to educate myself a little bit before I could go there, because I really didn't understand their issues. I found them a very progressive group, a group that was fully prepared to voluntarily agree to take on restrictions to management that ordinarily private land owners wouldn't have to.

I know this piece of legislation was discussed in great detail with that association, which represents most of the private forest landowners in the province. I know that a draft was discussed with the association back in

June when I met with them, and I also know there were constant discussions with the Private Forest Landowners Association and government. Anyone who suggests that there hasn't been any consultation in the creation of this new legislation just doesn't know the facts.

I think the reduced property tax assessment that owners of managed forest land receive is actually quite modest. I have heard some people say they shouldn't be receiving any sort of a tax break. The total cost to the province, as I understand it, is somewhere in the order of $3 million, perhaps up to $3.5 million. I don't have at my fingertips — my colleagues will probably know this — the total amount of hectares in the province under managed forest, but it's significant. To have that amount of private land in the forest being managed in a way that is respectful of values that ordinarily can only be enforced on public land I think is worth the cost of $3 million or $3.5 million. I can't imagine allowing or encouraging forestry to be practised on that volume of private land and not wanting those companies to comply with the same standards that we comply with on public land.

Those are my comments. It's a pleasure to stand up and speak in favour of the legislation. Again, I think the minister has done an excellent job of listening to the people who will be impacted by this legislation — first of all, the owners of the land, but also the people who happen to live adjacent to it and downstream from it. My congratulations to the minister, and thank you for the opportunity.

K. Stewart: I am also pleased to stand up in support of Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act. One of the things I have heard from most of my colleagues so far with regard to this is that they were referring mostly to larger tracts of private forested land.

I think there's a great opportunity for some of the smaller tracts of land to be utilized for forestry activities in areas that traditionally have not been utilized for such. We see a lot of smaller lots that could be either stand-alone lots or else private lands, which could be worked in conjunction with the publicly granted woodlots to ensure that they can get better yields by the size of these lands — in conjunction with both Crown and private lands. It would apply the same rules. Right now the rules would be different in a privately controlled forest as compared to a public one.

Now, no one really likes being told what to do on their own land, but if you give people incentives and options that might make it more likely that they're going to gain by following some set of rules, then I believe that's a good thing. I'd like to compare this to another regime we had with regard to controlling of lands within the province.

Many members here, I'm sure, are familiar with the agricultural land reserve. That had some merit to it. There were some good reasons why we had an agricultural land reserve. The prime reason, of course, was to protect farmland, but there were a number of other things that happened when they brought in that legislation. First off, there was lots of land that people owned which was previously zoned for a higher utilization, and that right was taken away from them. There wasn't an option. It was just taken away from them, and their lands were devalued.

In this case, what we're looking at is giving people an option to having the lands they currently own, zoned the way they are, be able to participate in a tax advantage by following our rules. That's totally optional. I think that's the big difference. The other thing under the agricultural land reserve is that there was lots of lands that went into the agricultural land reserve that weren't necessarily prime agricultural lands. There are lands in there that could probably be better utilized for private forests, lands that were conservation lands that really had little agricultural value and then other lands that just were not suited for agriculture due to the soil makeup or could be in flood plains that made it really unrealistic to farm. This is very specific to lands where people could actually create some revenue in a managed-forest perspective.

What would some of these advantages be to lands turned to forest as compared to some of the other utilization? Well, we all know that forests are a natural modifier. They are helpful in modifying our air, to help cleanse our air, so that any new forest stands would be beneficial compared to where there weren't any. It would also give people — again back to the incentive — an opportunity to utilize their lands other than for just agriculture where they may not be most suited to the traditional types of agriculture and maybe a tree farming operation will be much more suitable.

Again, back to the benefits. When you look at a forest, the time for growth, from when you first plant until you harvest, is a long time. In a sense, the benefits to the local community and society, the harvest of that wood, could almost be considered a by-product to all the other natural events that occurred during the life of that forest prior to harvest. That's not to say that you have to harvest the whole forest in one fell swoop either. I think the benefit of long-term planning to private lands is that you do have the opportunity to manage those forests in a way that you have continual harvesting, one area after another, and then by the time you're finished the cycle, you can come back to the start again.

That's one of the things I believe we see in privately managed forests that we don't in the Crown-granted forest where the licence comes up, they go in there, they log it, and then they move on. This way, what you're looking at is some stability also, especially in the larger tracts of private forest land. You're looking at some stability in the marketplace from the local community within those woodlots instead of just to come in, pick up the licence, log it off and move on.

There are advantages here, but the thing I like most about this is the fact that it's voluntary. People do have the option, and I think that's where the previous government missed this, especially when the ALR came in. There was no option for people.

I still look back to some of the property owners in '72-73 who have never recovered from the plans they

had for their properties that were taken away from them. So this is a great advantage over that, and I can't help but look back and say that if there would have been a little more sensitivity to the private ownership of land in those days, we may have been better off with some of our agricultural lands today. What's happened with our agricultural lands, because there was no choice, is that there are lands that were left out, which actually were very good agricultural lands that weren't utilized for that. Lands were left in that are very, very poor agricultural land, and they're being forced to keep them within that reserve.

Again, when I compare the two, they're really the only two areas of legislation that are compatible to try and preserve a natural resource that we do have. One, of course, is farmlands, and one is forestry.

Moving along to why I think this is going to be helpful in the future. As the private lands become managed and as we try and encourage more people to come into these forestry lands, I would like to hope that we'll see smaller tracts than we've traditionally seen in these private forests — people with specialty woods, people that can come in and look at their land and realize: "This is the place that I want to live, but not only do I want to live here — it's a large piece of land, larger than I need for my home and the basics — I can help preserve this land, and there will be some incentive through taxes to help me keep this larger tract of land instead of utilizing it, maybe, for some types of agricultural endeavours that will cause me to have to knock all the trees down so I can utilize every inch of this land for grazing, etc."

By having some incentive to keep it in force, we add to the conservation value of it. As people have mentioned before, the water quality's higher and the air quality's higher. For that long transition period of growth, there's a natural home for many animals. Especially in those areas bordering urban properties, there's opportunity for a refuge for those animals that are being forced out now. There are lots of advantages not only to the property owner, to the industry down the road where we have a more consistent supply of wood, but also to the people that live there, again, with the greening effect of these forests.

With that, I would just like to say that I'm very supportive of it, and I look forward to discussion in the next section of this bill.

T. Christensen: I was just thinking that we spend an awful lot of time here in this Legislature talking about trees and forests around the province, and it simply indicates, really, how critically important the forest industry is to our province and what a connection every single one of us and every one of our constituents has to the forests that surround our communities, in most cases — particularly those of us from areas outside of the lower mainland.

It's abundantly clear that we all have an interest in our forested lands, and it doesn't really matter whether those are public or whether they're private. What's nice to see here in Bill 88 is that we are doing something in respect of those forest lands, which certainly are a minority in the province in relation to the forest as a whole but that minority that is privately owned forested land.

I think we all recognize, or anybody that's spent any time thinking about British Columbia or watching public debate in British Columbia certainly recognizes, that managing public forest lands is often an incredible challenge because of this desire we all have, quite honestly, to accommodate a variety of land uses and to balance these competing values that we see in our forests — whether those are economic values, whether they are social and, in many cases increasingly so, cultural values that we hold in respect of our forested lands or whether those are environmental values.

As members have indicated, and again as an observer of this government would note, a great deal of progress has been made over the last couple of years in terms of legislation and regulation around trying to deal with our public forested lands. Certainly most recently, the amendments to the Land Act in Bill 46 go a long way to trying to reconcile these many competing interests that we have in respect of all lands in the province, including forested lands.

Of course, over the last couple of sessions we've seen a great deal of legislation dealing with forestry revitalization, all of which is quite complex given the regulatory and legislative structure that exists for forests in this province and the practice of forestry, but all of which are very necessary and appropriate steps forward in trying to revitalize the forest industry in this province. I think it's worth comment and is an honest comment that the government has indicated its keen interest in matters of forestry in this province and its keen desire to ensure that forestry once again returns to the prominence it has historically held here in British Columbia.

When we talk about private lands, we have the added factor, perhaps, of a need that I think we all hold dear, and that's the need to respect private property rights. I guess in some cases, the land use debate around private forested lands is somewhat easier. You have a private owner that, in fact, has a good deal of say in terms of what use those private forest lands might be put to. That's subject, of course, to some local zoning bylaws and that type of thing but also to some provincial restrictions in terms of environmental values and safety issues.

Certainly, private owners of land do still enjoy a considerable degree of flexibility in what they choose to do with their lands. But in another respect, for government certainly, dealing with private forested lands and trying to encourage effective management of those lands is perhaps a greater challenge than when we deal with public forested lands. Perhaps in some cases, the desire of government or the goals and the values the

government might want to pursue may, in fact, conflict with the desires of the private property owner, and we run head on into that philosophical conflict in terms of the extent of private land rights versus the greater interests of the public.

I think what's happening here in Bill 88 is something that moves in the direction of perhaps reconciling some of that conflict. I think we all know that in many cases private forested land is very often adjacent to communities around our province, particularly in the more rural areas of the province, and community members do take an interest in what's happening on those neighbouring lands. All of us don't necessarily like a viewscape that perhaps is changed by activity on particular private forested lands, and we have an interest in ensuring that those forested lands are well managed.

What Bill 88 is going to do, I'm very confident, is assist in ensuring that private forest lands are well managed. As other speakers have indicated and as the minister indicated, Bill 88 does this by establishing basically what is a public-private partnership between the provincial government and the owners of land that is classified as managed forest land. That council can then assist in coming to meet the objectives that are set out in the legislation, and those are what I think we would all agree are important objectives in terms of the economic, social and environmental value of our forests.

As with any public-private partnership, there are checks and balances here in terms of how this legislation sets up the council and the authority that the government retains, primarily through the minister. The minister will appoint 50 percent of the members of the council, excluding the chair. The minister retains the ability to order an independent audit of the governing council to ensure that the council is functioning in an appropriate manner. The governing council will report annually to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — again, to ensure that the minister has that accountability and can ensure that the goals of this legislation are being met.

There are other abilities there, including a broad ability for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to ensure that the objectives of this legislation are met in respect to the management of private forest lands. The incentive part of this, which in my mind is the critical component, is that the legislation provides an incentive to private owners of forested land to properly manage that forested land in the long term.

It does so by relying on this managed forest land classification under B.C. Assessment, essentially to allow a property tax incentive to properly manage those private forest lands. That classification is going to be dependent on this council and its involvement in determining whether the management objectives are being met, as well as other criteria, as one would expect, in typical regulations under the Assessment Act.

In this respect, I noted that one of my colleagues commented on how this differs from the agricultural land reserve and the steps that government took to try and protect agricultural land. I agree that this certainly differs and is much more of a cooperative approach to trying to provide an incentive to encourage proper management of private forest lands. It is somewhat similar to how we deal with agricultural land in terms of the property tax element, where we do provide an incentive through our property tax system to have farmers actually farm the agricultural land they own by having an agricultural land classification through the assessment authority. This is similar in the respect that through this managed forest land classification, those private forest landowners have a built-in incentive to be proactive in managing their lands to the objectives in Bill 88, given that they will then pay somewhat less property taxes. In my view, that's wholly appropriate if we want private land owners to pursue what I think we all can agree are broader public goals in terms of their particular land.

Of course beyond the objectives set out in Bill 88 alone, the private land owners do certainly remain subject to other provincial legislation. The goal and perhaps in some respects the challenge for government is to always ensure there's consistency in terms of the objectives here in this legislation and how those are met in relation to other provincial legislation, like the Water Act or the Wildlife Act or in some respects federal legislation when we start talking about fisheries. It is certainly a challenge that this moves towards reaching and which the objectives set out in part 3 of Bill 88 will, I believe, clearly pursue.

I want to comment just quickly on these objectives, because if any member of the public does pick up a copy of Bill 88 and reviews the objectives, it's pretty clear that they are broadly worded objectives. They are not objectives that one can take any great disagreement with, but they're important in terms of setting the foundation for what should be happening to ensure proper management of private managed forest land. They include objectives in respect of soil conservation, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife habitat and reforestation, all of which are certainly objectives that we find need to be met in respect of our public forest lands. It's only appropriate that as part of the trade-off in terms of this incentive to manage private forest lands, what government is getting and society as a whole is getting from this cooperation with the private land owner are those same types of objectives met in Bill 88 as we see in the Forest and Range Practices Act and across government when we're dealing with forestry.

So I'm very pleased to stand in support of Bill 88. I think it is an important step forward in terms of our private managed forest lands in the province, and I do note that it's my understanding that the Private Forest Landowners Association is supportive of this legislation. The minister has worked hard and worked well with that organization to ensure that we have a legislative framework that will work when it has to get out there on the ground and that private forest land owners can certainly continue to do well here in the prov-

ince — hopefully can do even better than they have in the past — and that we can at the same time accomplish some broadly public goals in respect of management of forest lands as a whole in the province.

B. Belsey: I, too, rise in support of the Private Managed Forest Land Act, Bill 88. The management of private forests around the province is very, very important.

We have private forests throughout my riding. One I have visited in years past is in a community called Oona River. They have a small forest over there in which they're well known and well renowned for the cedar that they take out of their private forest. The important part about that is that as an owner of a private forest, the management of that forest is critical — critical in that it's their livelihood. That's where they work. That's what they own. That's how they raise their families and provide from what they extract from that area of their forest, so it's very important. They are participants in sound forest management.

This act will help them. It provides them with some of the flexibility they need. It decreases some of the administration costs and the complexity of the current rules and regulations that they have to work under. That's extremely important for anybody working in British Columbia. You know, we have to keep in mind when we work in this province that we compete with Asian markets that are producing at a lot less than we can produce here, and we compete against markets in the U.S. that produce because of their efficiencies. We in this province have to look for and find efficiencies. Anytime we can help any industry by reducing some of their overhead, the complexity and the administration costs, we can move an industry forward.

The private forests around our province represent about two million hectares, or about 10 percent of the total cut, so they are a significant group of people that work and manage the forests of British Columbia. This act will simplify regulations and meet some of our new-era commitments. The deregulations will continue to support not only this industry but many others.

I also have a letter of support here from the Private Forest Landowners Association. They worked in conjunction with the ministry. They worked with the minister; they worked with his staff. They continue to work with his staff, but they are satisfied with what they see in this act. They have submitted a letter supporting the act. They represent a large majority, up to 95 percent of the private land owners in the province.

Important in any new act or regulation is a governing body that will manage and work with the independent landowners, and the province has put that in place — a governing body that will see up to 50 percent come from the private land owners, and 50 percent will be government appointments. The private land owners will provide the chair for this committee, and they will oversee the industry and work with the industry to ensure that the act is complied with and carried out.

Important in any act, also, are the environmental concerns. As I mentioned earlier, anybody that owns private land and manages that private land certainly has a vested interest in the environmental aspects and standards under which that land will be worked. This act includes some very important objectives. I think they've been mentioned before, but I would just like to go on record as pointing out that what this act is doing is moving from prescriptive environmental standards to results-based environmental standards.

As a member of the results-based code that travelled this province, I listened to many presentations from private land owners and woodlot owners, and they told us time and time again that the prescriptive regulations that they were currently working under were cumbersome, were costly and were unending — volumes of prescriptive regulations. Now we'll move to more of the results-based, as we have done in other pieces of forest legislation. We will look at soil conservation, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife habitat, reforestation. These will be looked at from the results-based point of view.

In order to manage our forests, which everybody in this province wants to do — everybody understands how important our forests are — we have to bring in sound legislation. This is sound legislation. This is legislation that will move forward a group of people that manage and work in the forests of British Columbia. I want it to go on the record that when it comes time to support this bill, I will stand and support the Private Managed Forest Land Act.

R. Visser: I'm actually simply getting tired of the Leader of the Opposition's phrase: "The fox is in charge of the henhouse." That phrase in itself — and they and their friends in the Green Party repeat it over and over and over again — just shows you the level of contempt that she and her party and her friends in the Green Party have for private sector investment and the ability and the desire in this province to do business, to create jobs and to earn something that I think this chamber feels is very important — to earn that first dollar, to earn that foreign currency so that we can supply health care and education to the people of this province.

She stood earlier and talked about this bill, Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act, and I am disappointed in her understanding of it — disappointed from the perspective that I just don't think she quite gets it. If she does get it, then she's capable of standing here and scoring some rather whimsical political points; and if she doesn't get it, then shame on her.

We made a commitment early on in our tenure, wanting to be elected, that we were going to move to results-based, that we were actually going to produce government that didn't interfere in people's lives in a prescriptive way, that we were going to empower those people to make the choices and the decisions they need to make that would produce an effective, efficient, innovative and careful economy. I think this is just another step in our process of doing that.

I want to go through some of these things with you all for a minute, and I want to put this in context. Pri-

vate managed forest lands in British Columbia cover 920,000 hectares. They provide, directly and indirectly, in excess of 18,000 jobs a year and $400 million to various levels of government in taxes — up to and including, plus or minus, 10 percent of the allowable harvest in this province annually.

It's a big deal. It's a big deal on the North Island. We have a number of large and not-so-large private forest landowners that, for the most part, work very hard to move this industry forward, to practise forestry in a way that isn't in our provincial understanding. These are private land owners. They actually own those trees. They are theirs, and they have certain rights and entitlements to that. We as a government inject ourselves into that to balance a broader public interest, and I think that's what this bill does. It provides a results-based world that meets broader public objectives but also allows for that economy to grow.

What does this do? It provides an incentive. It provides a tax incentive for these landowners to become involved in a regime that allows them to manage their forests in a sustainable way. There are other things at play here, which we'll come to, but this is one way the government has of inviting these people, these interests, into the regulatory world, into this world of understanding the broader public interest. I think it's a careful and thoughtful way of doing it.

We want you to become part of the council. The government will appoint some members, the private forest landowners will appoint some members, and they'll choose a chair. In exchange for your tax credits, we want you to be in this larger world. That larger world will be managed by this council. What is the council going to do? They're going to build some internal regulations, some internal workings, some internal mileposts.

The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that this is a different path than what's going on in the results-based world under the Forest and Range Practices Act and the regulations that are built there. Nothing is further from the truth. It is interesting for me, to say the least — knowing as many resource professionals as I know and having come into contact with them as often as I do — to listen to what she has to say. For the most part, the people that work on the private forest lands are the people that work on the public lands. The rules that work on the public lands, from an environmental perspective, are going to work on the private lands. All we're asking people to do is to be careful of the broader public interest, be mindful of the broader public interest and manage themselves accordingly.

We talk about five or six things here: soil conservation, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife habitat and reforestation. She says these are prescriptive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The forest management objective for soil conservation "for private managed forest land with respect to conservation of soil for areas where harvesting has been carried out is to protect soil productivity on those areas by minimizing the amount of area occupied by permanent roads, landings and excavated or bladed trails."

That's pretty cut and dried. What the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand…. In the world of the past government, in the world of the dark decade, this regulation, which is one sentence long, would have filled two or three guidebooks, and in order to get through the two or three guidebooks, you would have had to fill out six or seven wheelbarrows full of paperwork.

That's prescription. It's the government, it's us in this chamber, telling people that the bladed trail could only be 2.3 metres wide on average, if the length of the trail was 14.2 kilometres, but if it was less than 14.2 kilometres, it could be 1.7 metres wide but only on a downhill slope turning left, sideways, on a rainy day. But if it was a dry day and you were in the middle of the summer, you could maybe — if you applied for the amendment with the third or fourth wheelbarrow full of paperwork asking for such said amendment — widen that road a little bit. That's what they did to this industry for years.

One sentence. Here's what happens with that one sentence: one sentence unleashes the professionals. These are private forest owners. These are people who own the land. They want to grow trees. They earn money growing trees. Think of it: "We're going to grow some trees. We're going to cut those trees down, and we're going to get paid for it. We're going to manage it appropriately. You know what we need to grow trees in? We need soil."

My heavens, isn't that interesting? We're going to retain some soil. Well, there's a built-in incentive here. You don't need six guidebooks and four wheelbarrows full of paperwork to understand that. This is what we're trying to accomplish here. It makes sense. Preserve the quality and quantity of the soil on your private lands, and then it guarantees you that in the future you will be able to grow trees better and faster, and that maybe if you add some fertilizer, maybe if you tend to that land, you can reduce your rotation.

Maybe you could reduce it from 60 years, like it is on the east coast of Vancouver Island, down to 40 years. That's a 30 percent increase in your inventory; that's a 30 percent increase in the value of your asset. Think of it. What a good idea.

The opposition would have you think we need these big guidebooks to instruct that. Shame on them. You need to understand what drives this industry. Conservation of soil is important to the future of the industry. Let them set up a council. Let them hire their professionals. Let them build their regulations. Let them build some best practices, and let them carry on. They're going to grow trees. They're also going to protect water quality. It's important for them. They're going to protect fish habitat. It's important for them.

They're going to protect critical wildlife habitat. It's important for them. You know why? It's because they're neighbours, because they live in these communities and because they want their products certified.

The thing that the Leader of the Opposition keeps forgetting is that in her day, she and her government thought that the four wheelbarrows of paperwork just for soil conservation would somehow open some magical doors to the world market and that all would be well. It's not true. It didn't help a bit. It didn't help one bit. All it did was strangle this industry.

Let's unleash them a bit. Let's let some professionals out there. Let's let some professionals be innovative on how they protect and how they enhance critical wildlife habitat. Let's provide some incentive for them to do that. Let's bring them into the discussion. Let them make these rules. You know why? They want to be certified. They're going to set some objectives. They're going to identify the results they will achieve on this land base, and they're going to go out and get it every single time. Do you know why? It's because their certification and their access to markets depend on it. If you can't sell your tree, there's no point in cutting it down. There's no point in any of this.

There are some lessons that we've learned over the last decade — the wrong way and the right way. This is the right way. This isn't the fox in charge of the henhouse. I just really don't like that phrase, so I'm going to repeat it a few times. I really don't like it. It drives me crazy. It just doesn't make sense, because it is a complete misreading of the environment we live in. It's a complete misreading of what it means to be a neighbour. It's a complete misreading of what it means to protect and preserve water quality. These are all things that are important to people. Private land owners aren't necessarily — although sometimes they are objectified this way — large, massive multinational corporations. Sometimes they're just Mrs. Jones who lives in Cedar, whose family had a farm — that section of land they got in 1850 — and who still manages the forest lands there. Maybe that's who these people are. They're neighbours, and they need a regime to work in. They're going to hire the professionals, and they're going to make it work, because these professionals are innovative. They're thoughtful. They're going to work on fish habitat.

There's nothing more important, I think, to the corporate image these days, to the small farmer-landowner, the managed forest land owner or to the larger corporations than public image now. It drives them. It drives them to make the investments in fish habitat. It drives them to be sensitive in riparian zones. It drives them to be sensitive around critical wildlife habitat for herons, goshawks, marbled murrelets and a whole host of things we did not take into account years ago. They have an incentive to behave. They have an incentive to excel.

That's what these regulations express. If you want to excel in this stuff, we will provide the incentive. The incentive is access through reduced property tax. Once you're inside that gate, once you're inside that house, these are the rules you will collectively decide amongst yourselves on how you behave. These rules that you will collectively decide amongst yourselves will be designed by professionals. They will be informed by the interests that are most affected.

They will balance the need to build a strong balance sheet, a strong company, to provide for their employees, to provide for the families those employees are trying to raise, to provide for their communities in which they live, to provide for all of those around them. They'll balance that with the environmental aspects. They'll balance that with soil conservation, this thought that they might need soil around to grow some trees on later.

Sometimes in this world you just have to start embarking in trust. You have to start empowering people. You have to have them understand that it's going to be fine, that they are capable, that this is the right way to go, that on balance they will make the right decisions over and over again.

This is a good piece of legislation. It saves the government money. That's important, because the money we save goes to health care and education. It's what the public wants. It's a good piece of legislation because it empowers those corporations and those individuals inside of this regulatory house that they're going to build to make wise decisions. It empowers them to be good corporate citizens and good citizens and good neighbours. It achieves the balances that we set out as a government to try and achieve.

I think the Private Forest Landowners Association is proud of this legislation. I know the minister brought them in, and they worked very closely on it. I think we've done the right thing here. I know we've done the right thing here. It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition can't see that sometimes you need to find a new analogy. The "fox in the henhouse" thing just doesn't work for me anymore.

D. MacKay: After listening so intently to the words from the member for North Island, I got the impression that perhaps I was sitting in school and my notebook was open. As he spoke, and he spoke so eloquently, I got the impression he was reading my prepared speech for this evening. I have to ask the House to bear with me this evening, because I think what I'm going to say during my input into Bill 88 is going to be very similar to what the member for North Island had to say in his comments.

It was interesting to listen to the Leader of the Opposition. I was sitting in my office while she was speaking to Bill 88 and talking about her opposition to what we were intending to do with this piece of legislation. It's interesting when you listen to the opposition, particularly the NDP, because they seem to think government has to control everything we do in our day-to-day lives — everything.

We talked about wheelbarrows full of paper telling people how to do certain things. I guess probably the best example I can make a comparison with is if you

look at the ten years the NDP were in power in this province. They took this province, which was once a leader in this federation, a province that created more jobs than anywhere else in this country…. It was a leader in everything we did in this province, and then came the NDP.

Shortly after the NDP came into power, new regulations were imposed, red tape was imposed, and over that ten-year period we saw a decline in the economy. We saw jobs leaving this province. We saw head offices running from British Columbia and refocusing into Alberta, where they were welcome. They literally chased the private sector from this province through regulation and red tape. To this day they still think regulation is the way to go. They have to control everything we do. They want to control us, from the time we're born to the time we leave this world, through regulation and red tape.

That's what they want to do, but the people of this province in May 2001 said no. They changed. They changed because this government had the courage to say: "We have to make some changes in the way we govern this province, and we have to give some control back to the people." The people in this province are responsible people. They're good people. They live in this environment. We all live in the same environment. Nobody gets up in the morning and says: "Let's go out and destroy streams where the fish reside and see if we can destroy the water we all drink and pollute the air." Nobody gets up in the morning and says that's what we have to do in this province. In order to do that, the NDP said we've got to regulate every aspect of our lives. We saw what happened. The province of British Columbia became a have-not province in ten years under the previous administration because of red tape and regulation.

The Private Managed Forest Land Act is a new piece of legislation, and it's there to replace the Forest Land Reserve Act, which was repealed in November 2002. Those people who do have private managed forest land in this province had no place to call home. But it's interesting, because the majority of people who have private managed forest land in this province are already part of this new legislation. They're going to transfer from the now-defunct Forest Land Reserve Act to this Private Managed Forest Land Act. They are going to be encompassed, if they wish to be. They don't have to apply for it. They're going to be automatically carried over and become part of this new process. As the member for North Island mentions, there are 920,000 hectares of privately managed forest land in this province. That's a big piece of real estate in a province the size of British Columbia. That's almost 4 percent of the entire land mass of this province.

As I said, those people that have private managed land today don't have to apply if they wish to take part in this process. I want to comment on that. If they wish to take part in this new process, they don't have to do anything. They're already there. It's not mandatory that they do it; it's a choice they can make. That's what's so different about this: we are not forcing anything down private owners' throats. They can, however, apply for a withdrawal from this if they wish. If they want to be taken from the Private Managed Forest Land Act and be excluded from the requirements that will be imposed on them, should they choose to enter, they can do so. We're not going to say: "You can't." That's a big step in the right direction: giving people control over the land they own.

Basically, what we're looking at is a partnership of government and private land owners to manage forest lands in concert with existing provincial legislation — legislation we have passed in this House, the results-based forest code. We got rid of all that regulation that the NDP had imposed on people throughout this province during the ten years they were in government.

Why would anybody want to join this group? Why would you want to have membership in this? There's got to be some incentive there for people to want to join. I think we have done that. We've made it known that if you decide to join the group, there are going to be some rules you're going to have to follow. But if you follow those rules, there are going to be some tax incentives there for you. The carrot in this Bill 88 is the tax incentive through the B.C. Assessment Act, which will now class the lands as managed forest land, which will give the owners some tax incentives and some tax breaks if they stay in compliance.

It's also going to reduce cost to government. We're going to see a council. The council is going to be made up of two people appointed by the owners and two people from government. Among those four people — the two from the council, private people, and the two from the government appointees — they will select a fifth person who will act as a chair of this committee.

These people that are going to be on this board are going to have to know a little bit about forest practices management and a little bit about local government. They're going to have to know about zoning requirements. There's going to be some onus on them to understand what they're getting into, if they decide to allow their names to stand for appointment by government or from the private sector.

There's also going to be an annual fee attached to this to cover the costs of the administration of this new council. But it's interesting, because if partway through the season it's discovered that they don't have enough money there to continue on with their operations, they're going to go back to the council and they're going to increase the fees to the private land owners, at no cost to government. It's a win situation for government. We're taking some of the costs away from government and imposing it on the private sector, on private land owners, and I think that makes so much sense — with no cost to government.

Now, I just want to elaborate a little more on some of the stuff that the member for North Island started on about soil conservation. When you look at part 3 under Bill 88, it deals with forest management, and division 1 says: "Management Objectives on Private Managed For-

est Land." The first one, of course, is the soil conservation. You heard the member for North Island speak about the requirement for soil conservation, because you need soil to grow trees. Well, you don't need to be a rocket scientist and you don't need to be a government official imposing legislation saying you've got to protect the soil on your land. You're looking at the size of the landings, the roads going in. You need soil in order to grow trees. I mean, that's common sense. I don't think anybody in their right mind who owns private land is going to ignore the most vital element that they have, and that is the soil from which the trees grow.

When you talk about water quality also, I suspect most of these private land owners are parents. They have children, and in some cases such as myself, I have grandchildren. I don't have any private land. However, most people, as I said in my opening comments…. We all breathe the same air and we drink the same water, so why would anybody in their right mind do something to the water that runs through private land, making it undrinkable as it passes across their land and back into Crown land? It doesn't make any sense. People are responsible. They're responsible because they have to drink the same water that we drink.

It also goes further, when you talk about water quality. It says: "(2) Nothing in subsection (1)" — which is talking about retaining the quality of water — "requires an owner to retain additional streamside trees or additional understory vegetation to address problems with water quality that originate outside of the owner's private managed forest land." So we're not imposing anything on the private land owners except on their own property, and only if they agree to be part of this process.

When we talk about fish habitat, once again it doesn't take a rocket scientist and it doesn't take somebody from government saying you have to protect fish habitat. Anybody in their right mind, and particularly private land owners, is going to do that without government breathing down their neck. That's a given.

We also talked about the critical wildlife habitat. I think most private land owners enjoy seeing wildlife walk through their property, and they understand what's needed to make sure that wildlife will be there for future generations.

Lastly on the list, we talk about the reforestation. The member for North Island spoke so eloquently about the soil, how necessary it was for trees to grow. Reforestation. When you take a tree down, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that you have to put new trees back in the ground if you want to manage that land and cut trees down on it 60 years from now, if you live on Vancouver Island, or 100 years if you live in the northern part of the province. You've got to put new trees in the ground after you cut them, so the reforestation issue is a no-brainer. That goes without saying. Some of those things are critical, and they shouldn't be too hard for anybody to understand.

In order for those private land owners to be able to do their day-to-day work and still be part of this process, there's a compliance and enforcement council that is going to have to be in place to make sure that they are living up to the conditions under which they have agreed to and for which they are getting a tax break through the B.C. Assessment designation on their land.

It's interesting, when you look at the different penalties that are attached in the act. The first penalty talks about the administration dealing with the consent agreement, where the council and the party whose land is in non-compliance can come to an understanding through conversation, and remedial action can be taken without getting heavy-handed. If in fact the private property owner wanders too far outside, there is a penalty of upwards of $25,000 that can be assessed on the private property owner for non-compliance under the act.

There are also charges that can be laid by the Crown which carry a much more severe penalty, and I guess that would come into play if the council and the aggrieved party can't come to some understanding for a consent agreement and the Crown then gets involved. The penalties under that one are much more severe. They carry maximum penalties of upwards of $500,000, so it's a pretty severe penalty.

If there are people out there who are private land owners with forest on the land and they want to become part of the process to take advantage of the tax incentives there, there's a process of how to do that. That's part of the act as well.

There are a number of people that have been consulted. In particular, the general manager of the Private Forest Landowners Association wrote a letter dated October 21, 2003, to the minister responsible for this bill. I'd just like to read one paragraph out of this letter. It says:

There is the general manager of this association supporting what the government is doing under Bill 88. For those reasons, I also stand up here today and would like to put my support to Bill 88. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill as it passes through the House.

J. Les: I won't be very long this evening, but I did want to make a few comments on Bill 88. Already I'm getting rabid applause from the member for Prince George North, who I know also wants to speak on this bill.

Bill 88, I think, is extremely good legislation, and it is applicable to my riding as well. Members may not be aware, but there are plantations in and around my riding. Typically, we grow cottonwood trees on those plantations. They're harvested about every 15 years, because these lands are very, very productive, and they're grown again. This has been going on for decades in the Chilliwack area. Islands in the Fraser River are typically where this type of land is found. It is very relevant to my riding and also to the riding of the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

There is, however, one thing about this bill that I find extremely regrettable. As a matter of fact, it's really too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is simply this: it only applies to 4 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. I wish it applied to 70 or 80 or more percent of the land base of British Columbia, because we would be a far better place and a far more economically productive place if that great a percentage of the land base was privately owned. However, that is not the case, and we find ourselves with a situation where only a very small percentage of the land base of British Columbia is privately owned.

Happily, we have come up with Bill 88, the legislation that is going to regulate how that forest land base is going to be cared for. I think the key thing about this bill is that it is regulation by incentive and by enlightened self-interest, as opposed to government prescription and government fiat. That, to me, is always to be preferred over the situation that we have found ourselves in particularly over the past decade.

Most people who own land privately want to look after it so that it is as productive as it possibly can be. When I was a boy, I grew up in east Chilliwack, and my father owned a dairy farm of 60 acres. I remember very clearly one of the lessons that I learned in life, which was that as each year went by, my father was extremely careful to ensure that those 60 acres of farmland were more and more productive. You know what? It was too. I remember 20 and 30 years later, as time went by, we grew things on that 60 acres of land that were simply unimagined when my father first bought that farm in 1963.

The same is true with forest lands. They can become more productive and more useful environmentally at the same time. Those who would tend to feel otherwise, I think, really should study various examples around the world where ownership is held in some kind of collectivity. That is never as successful as the private ownership model and the incentives that are inherent in private ownership.

We have a phenomenally productive land base in British Columbia. Some of it, happily, is in private ownership, and I'm very pleased that we've brought forward this bill that is going to allow those private forest landowners to manage that resource in a way that makes sense, where there's some opportunity for them to self-regulate and an opportunity for us as government to lift the heavy regulatory hand off their shoulder and let them go about their business in the most productive way possible. So I am very pleased to stand in this House this evening to support this legislation, and I will be interested in the further comments of my colleagues as this debate continues.

B. Penner: It's a pleasure and an honour tonight to speak to this bill and to follow in the footsteps of my esteemed colleague the member for Chilliwack-Sumas and to try and add yet another perspective to this scintillating debate this evening.

Bill 88, as has already been described, provides some voluntary mechanisms for private land owners of forest land to opt into a regulatory regime. Now, I happen to chair the Government Caucus Committee on Natural Resources, and our committee dealt with this proposal at some length over the last number of months. I must confess to some questions on my part as to why private businesses would voluntarily submit to increased regulation in terms of how they manage their forest lands if they don't have to. Yet that's exactly what we're presented with here tonight: a bill that will allow private forest landowners to opt into a regulatory regime. I'm advised that the owners of these lands see an opportunity to help them market their products by pointing to the fact that they are subject to government regulations and standards and that they are living up to those standards.

We've already heard tonight the member for Chilliwack-Sumas pointing out that in the Fraser Valley, there are a number of privately owned forest lands. In fact, in the eastern hillsides of Chilliwack, there are quite a number of individuals who from time to time take part in a certain amount of logging activity. If they choose to opt into this regulatory regime, then they will be subject to some of the stringent types of regulations that currently apply to the Crown-owned land, the land where the majority of the forest activity is currently taking place in British Columbia.

I'll give you an example. It's taking place not just in British Columbia but right in Chilliwack. Already today members will have heard me speak about Elk Creek in relation to another debate we had this morning. In that circumstance, which is on Crown land, the Forest Practices Code applies. There are stringent regulations about how close to the creek the logging can be, and it's not close at all. Actually, I think there are 30-metre setbacks, and I'm advised the licensee is increasing voluntarily the amount of setback from the creeks. There are other standards that apply in terms of what kind of trees must be left behind. Of course, the Ministry of Forests compliance and enforcement personnel are climbing all over that hillside looking for any potential violations and to date, I'm advised, have found none.

Once private forest landowners opt into this regime, they will become subject to some of the same stringent criteria I've just described applying to the current selective harvesting activity taking place at Elk Creek. It is an extra measure of comfort that should be provided to those people who are concerned about the environment — that people operating on private lands

will have some incentive to opt into this regime if they want to take advantage of certain tax considerations and once they do so, of course, will then be subject to these additional requirements.

I think this is good public policy. It gives people a choice. They can make a considered decision about whether it's in their own interest economically, to give them that marketing advantage, to take advantage of any tax incentives that may be available. Of course, if they do that, then there's the public policy position of the government that says if you want to take advantage of those opportunities, here's what you need to do. You need to step into this regulatory framework. As I've already mentioned, there are people in the private sector who have told us that is exactly what they intend to do and will do once this act is passed into law.

I think it makes sense, and I'll look forward to how it works in practice. Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Bray: I, too, am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act. Now, some may question why a Victoria MLA with no private forests in his riding would be standing to speak on this bill. Well, there are several reasons and several principles.

J. Bray: There we go. The members for the heartland are making jokes about Beacon Hill Park.

My constituents speak to me on several very significant principles with respect to how the province manages its land base, manages its forests and sets forth the kind of regulatory framework that protects that land base for future generations. As the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management knows, I come in to see him and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on a frequent basis with issues that my constituents raise around this issue. I feel it's incumbent on me, when I see the fruits of that labour come forward in legislation, to acknowledge that and also to provide my constituents a chance to see some of their feedback coming to the fore in legislation.

Now, I won't repeat all the various things that members of this House have raised for what Bill 88 does in general, but one of the significant issues that I think it marries into legislation is the concept of targeted tax incentives and improved regulatory environment for private land owners and the stewardship of the land. What Bill 88 does is actually provide for voluntary participation in a new management plan for private forests based on a reduction of taxation.

My constituents tell me a lot of things, but a couple of things they say are: "We really want to make sure that any tax policy that your government generates actually leads to benefits not only for us today but also for future generations — that it has long-term planning." Well, Bill 88 clearly shows that by using targeted tax incentives, you can have long-term sustainable improvements in unrelated areas such as private forests.

Another thing I want to speak on with respect to that is that I believe nobody has a stronger vested interest in the environment than the very owners of the properties that Bill 88 is talking about. In other words, the owners of this land base aren't somehow devoid from environmental concerns. They live in those environmental concerns. They raise their families in those environmental concerns. Their children's legacy isn't a viewscape that they may see occasionally going on a flight from A to B. It is, in fact, the very habitat in which these people live. Providing tax incentives to ensure they can manage the land in the greatest environmental management and in a way that allows them to also raise their families by being able to make a living off the land base is, to me, a very progressive step in moving land management forward.

Another thing that Bill 88 has that I think I'd like to raise to the attention of the House is…. Many of my constituents understand the general concept of results-based codes and results-based regulation. Their concern is that there isn't anything on the back end of those types of regulatory frameworks that actually ensures compliance. Well, Bill 88 sets forth some very significant penalty areas that I think are not to be undermined — either for the forest land owners themselves or, also, for constituents in ridings like mine, where they have a general concern about the environment and want to make sure we're setting forth laws that are actually going to achieve the results but also hold people accountable.

Although there's a voluntary component to Bill 88 and the council and the regulatory framework with which private land owners will participate, when they choose to take the opportunity of tax reduction through Bill 88, they also take on a responsibility to manage those forests, those lands, in accordance with the council's objectives. That means if they transgress those, there are penalties in place that will hit them in the same place that was the incentive in the first place, which is their pocketbook — their bottom line.

I believe that people who live out in the heartlands, people who actually make their living off the land base, are the greatest stewards of our land. I believe that people who raise their families in rural communities do so because that's the environment they want their families to live in. But my constituents also want to make sure that we provide the framework in regulation and legislation that backs that up. I think Bill 88 does an excellent job of balancing those things: providing the incentive, ensuring that participation will benefit the private land owner but that the regulatory backup is there for those who may transgress those.

I think the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management achieved that balance — not in isolation, not with his staff in the ivory tower here in Victoria. As I've learned extensively tonight through debate, this bill, in fact, comes out of extensive consultation with the very people who live on the land, the very people who have a lot at stake with respect to how they manage their lands for themselves as well as for their future generations, which are their children.

My children live in urban areas, and so they have an interest in the heartlands and how those lands are managed, but in fact, it is people like private….

Private land owners, private forest landowners out in the heartlands — they have the greatest stake because it is the environment they're raising their children in. It is, in fact, the asset they are using to sustain their family in those communities. Bill 88 provides the right incentives, the right regulatory framework and the right penalties to ensure the objectives that all British Columbians want, which is productive use of our land, with environmental stewardship for generations to come. I think Bill 88 does a great job of that.

It also leads to something else that I have spoken to several times in this House, which I constantly have to remind the members of the opposition about. This government has brought in, in each ministry, three-year service plans. These service plans lay out broad objectives that ministers are held accountable to, and the public can, in fact, learn what ministries are doing and have the kind of input, on an ongoing basis, that can influence decisions.

The objectives of targeted tax incentives, stewardship of the land and regulatory reduction of useless red tape are three that go across government but that are specific. If the members of the opposition would read the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's service plan, they would see those are some key areas that have been identified in that service plan. What's exciting for me, although I have no private forest lands in my riding, is when I see ministries with clear targets, clear measurements, clear directions, and they then set forth and start to achieve those. They achieve those because we plan and we execute.

As members of this House know, I was a member of the public service for 13 years prior to being elected, and I remember going through ten years of the opposition as government, where there was no plan, no direction, no vision and no real decisions. What happened was policy by panic and policy by press release.

Bill 88 is a perfect example of policy by planning, policy by consultation and policy directed by results. I'm proud to stand and speak in favour of Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act, because it is the culmination of issues that my constituents are concerned about. It provides a legacy for people who live in the heartlands, it provides a legacy for people in my community who want sustainable land management, and, more importantly, it's a testament to the great work our public service can do for us when we provide the public service of British Columbia with clear direction and clear plans and we stick to them.

I congratulate our public service, I congratulate the private forest management group who consulted with the minister, and I congratulate the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management on an excellent piece of legislation that moves us forward yet again.

P. Bell: Well, it appears I'm going to have to trim my half-hour speech down to two or three minutes. This evening I am very, very pleased to support Bill 88. I can tell you that from my perspective, this is a key initiative, and it's quite focused, really, on what we want to accomplish. Oftentimes we hear about the terrible things that apparently occur on private land, and yet this speaks to that and says that in order for us to establish a taxation regime around private lands, we expect certain benefits back in the way those lands are managed. This is exactly what this bill does.

It's all about the types of things that my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill and his constituents find very, very important — things like soil conservation, being one of the primary qualities and concerns that we have, and water quality. Who can suggest that that is not a top priority for people? Fish habitat is another one of the key things we're looking for. Critical wildlife habitat is another one of the key qualities we're looking for, and certainly reforestation.

I can tell you that at my end of the world I have seen lots of private lands that were harvested and not reforested. It takes a significant amount of time for them to naturally regenerate, as opposed to lands that are regenerated through an effective silviculture regime. I believe it's very prudent for this government to look at tax incentives to allow that to take place. In return for that, we have very high standards that we expect.

One of the things I particularly like about this bill is that it allows for voluntary entry and exit from the program but under very specific conditions, and they have to be able to demonstrate that they've fulfilled their commitments over a long period of time. If they want to exit from the program, there are penalties in place to prevent that from occurring if they've just taken advantage of it over a short period of time.

There are lots of good reasons to support this bill. It speaks to the environmental qualities and values that we all cherish in the province of British Columbia, and it creates an incentive for private land holders to stay focused on what really is important, and that's creating value not only for ourselves but for all of our children and all of our grandchildren in the long-term scheme of things.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 88, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to thank my colleagues for all the work that they've put into their speeches this afternoon. I want to thank them for their intensive examination of this bill. I want to thank them for their thoughtfulness and their careful examination of the bill. I want to thank them for the support of this bill.

I think what we're looking at here is a very important piece of legislation, and I would just like to remind us and read into the record that this bill actually does establish the private managed forest land council, which is so important and a critical part of this. The purpose of that council is to uphold forest practice standards that protect the public values on privately

owned forest land. Those are water quality — all of these were referred to by my colleagues — fish habitat, critical wildlife and soil conservation. This council will continue the successful partnership between the provincial government and the forest land owners.

Having said that, and noticing the hour, I'm pleased to move second reading for Bill 88.

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 88, Private Managed Forest Land Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

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


	YEAS — 57

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
van Dongen	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Hagen	Plant
Collins	Clark	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott


	YEAS — 45

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	van Dongen
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Hagen	Plant	Collins
Clark	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Neufeld	Penner
Orr	Harris	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Hayer
Christensen	McMahon	Bray
Locke	Bhullar	Bloy
Suffredine	Cobb	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Hamilton
Sahota	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail


	YEAS — 35

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	J. Reid
Bruce	van Dongen	Roddick
Wilson	Hagen	Plant
Collins	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Neufeld	Penner
Orr	Harris	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Christensen	McMahon	Locke
Bhullar	Bloy	Suffredine
Cobb	Visser	Lekstrom
Sahota		Hunter

	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Neufeld	Penner	Jarvis
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail