The Preamble defined the multi-uses for the public forests. It’s gone.
In November, the BC Liberals passed Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. The new and controversial self-regulation legislation, which becomes law in the Spring of 2003, will replace the 1994 Forest Practices Code Act, and makes significant changes.
During the debate of Bill 74 on November 18, 2002, Forests Minister De Jong repeatedly dodged questions about why the Preamble was removed from the former Forest Practices Code Act and who was responsible for its removal (Hansard, pages 4488 ff.).
Without the Preamble, which establishes the spirit and intent of the legislation, actions and decisions taken under the authority of the Act cannot be evaluated. Since 1996, the Preamble has been cited in several major Forest Practices Board investigations, six Supreme Court judgements, and three Supreme Court appeal cases. The Preamble was invoked as a benchmark for evaluating decisions affecting biodiversity and First Nation’s rights.
During the debate on the Preamble in the Legislature on May 30, 1994, lawyer and Forests Minister Andrew Petter summarized his government’s reasons for including the Preamble’s five principles as “the desire of British Columbians to seek a more balanced use of forest resources – one that responds to the entire spectrum of current needs without compromising the needs of future generations … and expressly links forest stewardship to an ethic of respect for the land.” Petter went on to explain that the Preamble “is a framework that recognizes the importance of biological diversity, of preserving forest soils, wildlife habitat and riparian zones, and of respecting cultural heritage resources as key values. It’s a framework that facilitates the protection of special and sensitive resource features and that ensures that operational planning is consistent with higher-level land use plans, thereby providing an opportunity for greater public review and accountability.” Afterwards, Liberal party Forests critic Wilf Hurd complained in the legislature that the Preamble “priorities” were too “environmental.”
“It is obvious that the government deliberately gutted the intent of the Forest Practices Code Act to weaken an already weak law and to introduce new provisions which are not compatible with the original intent. This is why Minister De Jong evaded the issue in the legislature. The death of the Preamble signals that the Liberals’ intention is to protect forest industry profits at the expense of the environment and the people of this province,” Will Koop, Coordinator of the B.C. Tap Water Alliance, said recently. “We have been stripped of our ability to measure the environmental performance of this government on public lands.”
*BC Tap Water Alliance, November 2002. For more information: www.alternatives.com/bctwa; Ph: (604)224-4717; Email: bctwa@alternatives.com
***
[From WS February/March 2003]
