1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 14
[ Page 10221 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
D. Schreck: In the gallery today are Todd Hickey and Charlene Euven. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
U. Dosanjh: In the gallery today is my friend and former legislative assistant, Patti Spooner, and her daughter Angela. Patti is presently constituency assistant to the Minister of Agriculture in the sunnier climes of Williams Lake.
N. Lortie: I have the pleasure today of having an entire section of the visitors' gallery full with my friends and constituents from North Delta. They have come together as a group, and they are: Vince Trayers, Paul and Maria Skender, Bill Inglis, Lloyd MacDonald, Chuck Gauthier, Mike and Myrt Priddie, Dave Hales, Arne Knudsen, Ben Mullins, Guy and Shirley Gentner, Harold and Sally Funk, Don DeMille and Colin (Mac) Gaffney. They are just a few of my supporters from North Delta. Would the House please make them welcome.
T. Perry: I'll do what the hon. member for Delta North couldn't do and second his welcome to one in particular: Mr. Don DeMille. For those members who have not yet had their tour of Burns Bog, I'd like to assure them that this is the chap to lead you. He will lead you into the deepest part of the swamps, the thickest mud and the softest and cushiest sponge beds -- for anyone who has a sore bottom from sitting on these benches all day long. He will find you wildlife, if it can be found, including sticklebacks. He's a very good guide for children as well. I'd like to welcome him personally also.
G. Wilson: I'd like the House to welcome Chris Brown from Powell River. Chris is a key member of the Powell River Sea Fair committee -- a hard worker -- and one of the growing number of members of the Alliance Party in Powell River.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS
G. Farrell-Collins: It appears that the NDP federal leadership campaign is off to a fast start. The Minister of Employment and Investment has been recruiting his team and finding them government jobs in his ministry. The Liberal opposition has learned that Tim Gallagher, an NDP hack and former employee of MP John Rodriguez, has been hired as a communications officer with B.C. 21. Can the minister tell us if this job was advertised and who else applied?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to talk about my ministry. I have the former deputy minister to Bill Vander Zalm as deputy minister. I have a former researcher for the Social Credit Party in the communications department. I have former ministerial assistants to former Socred cabinet ministers. We in the Ministry of Employment and Investment are equal opportunity employers.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: We in B.C. have learned that some people are more equal than others.
It appears that yet another NDP hack has found her way into B.C. and into this minister's ministry. Maria Ciarniello, fresh out of the now decimated NDP headquarters in Ottawa, has been parachuted into the Island Highway project as a -- guess what -- communications officer. Can the minister tell us why his local-hire policy for the Island Highway didn't apply to this position?
Hon. G. Clark: The director of communications for the Ministry of Employment and Investment used to be the ministerial assistant to Jack Davis, a former Social Credit cabinet minister. I'm pleased to announce to the members of the House that Bill Vander Zalm's former personal secretary has recently been hired as a policy analyst for the B.C. 21 committee and is doing an excellent job. All the way through the ministry, we don't discriminate on the basis of politics. We have good public employees today who, at one point in their lives, were active for a previous government or political party. In fact, we might even have a Liberal working for the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The more Liberals he can get, the better his policy will get, so I would encourage him.
But there's more to this story. Can the minister tell us...
Some Hon. Members: More?
The Speaker: Order!
G. Farrell-Collins: ...how Maria Ciarniello, a professional civil servant, ended up organizing the NDP's convention last month? And was her contract being paid by the taxpayers while she did that job?
Hon. G. Clark: As I said, we have many people working for the government. Most of them are employed through a competition. I'm not sure about Ms. Ciarniello and some of the other people. Some of them are on contract. As I said before, we are prepared to hire people regardless of their politics. I understand that four people were fired by the Liberal caucus. Some of them may apply. One of them who is suing the Liberal caucus may apply. We are happy to look at any opportunity to improve the quality of our public employees in British Columbia.
GOVERNMENT USE OF QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. It appears that the litany of abuse of taxpayers' money continues in this province. Today we have learned that the NDP government paid over $65,000 to send five B.C. bureaucrats to attend the Queen's University executive program. Could the Premier tell us if he agrees with bureaucrats taking a $13,000 field trip at taxpayers' expense?
[ Page 10222 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will give a full and detailed answer to that question. I'm not aware of the details, so I'll take it on notice.
The Speaker: The member has a new question? The question was taken on notice.
W. Hurd: The brochure advertising this particular trip talks about recreational activities.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The question was taken on notice.
W. Hurd: We are told that the graduates of the program went on canoe trips and sailing trips, and went sport fishing and golfing. Can the Premier tell us whether he agrees that those are appropriate perks for members of the executive attending Queen's University?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If it's in the off-hours, for the employees of the government to be healthy and to jog -- as you do, hon. Speaker -- or to run in the 10-K Sun Run -- as I did on Sunday -- is good exercise. I think it makes for healthier employees.
[2:15]
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us why his government isn't using the successful executive program at the University of British Columbia? What happened to the government's Buy B.C. program when it comes to these executive trips and executive perks?
VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. In 1992, in his capacity as the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, this minister wrote to B.C. Ferries and asked if they could commission a study to look at the viability of B.C. Ferries running a Seattle-to-Victoria ferry. Will the minister confirm that that study was completed and that it could not be shown to be an economically viable operation?
Hon. G. Clark: No, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure if the minister is saying no, the study wasn't commissioned, or no, the study showed that it wasn't economically viable. Clearly this operation has been attempted by two separate free enterprise operators, who have both found that it has failed. This government has now embarked upon this sailing. Could the minister tell us what assurance the people have -- in light of the fact that B.C. Ferries has just put an across-the-board fare hike on those people dependent on ferries -- that this will not simply become an operation into which this government must pay endless amounts of money?
Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to share with the member, or any members, the marketing work that has been done for the Victoria-Seattle ferry service, which in fact showed that it was viable. But what made it particularly attractive to the government at this time was the commissioning of the second superferry, which is very popular in British Columbia and is providing excellent service. It freed up the Queen of Burnaby, a surplus vessel to the existing routes operated by B.C. Ferries. As a result of that, and as a result of a very modest refit and a complete change in the Victoria-Seattle service that we're providing, we're very confident that this service can not only break even but add millions of dollars in tax revenue to the people of British Columbia by promoting tourism in this very attractive region of Victoria.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: I would suggest that there is information to indicate that that is less than likely. I wonder if the minister might commit to this House today that he is prepared to table the full reports and findings of the B.C. Ferries service with respect to that run, and if he will confirm that, by order-in-council in December of last year, this minister was given an opportunity to borrow up to $10 million for this run -- and in fact, is going to be putting in greater amounts than the $10 million allotted, at a time when he is charging citizens of the province increased ferry rates on the existing B.C. Ferries service.
Hon. G. Clark: There are a lot of questions in that last question, but I'll answer as best I can recall. First of all, I will confirm that the responsibility for what was the Princess Marguerite and the Stena operations was transferred to my ministry for the purposes of the corporate vehicle to accelerate the Victoria Line. That had with it some cash assets in the bank. It may well have had some borrowing powers, but there's no intention of using those borrowing powers. The Queen of Burnaby was transferred to the new corporation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation was made whole by the purchase of that, so the Ferry Corporation is not subsidizing any service between Victoria and Seattle.
I want to assure members that the high-quality service and efficient standards of B.C. Ferries are not compromised at all. Our ferry fares are among the lowest in the world. We're improving service with the new superferries, and we intend over the next few years to have an exciting plan to improve service even further for the people of British Columbia.
SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE
V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. We're very aware that any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a child has been abused in this province is required by law to declare it and make family and child service aware of it. We had the recent incident of five-year-old Matthew Vaudreuil. We understand that that was reported, but it was not followed up adequately by the ministry. This incompetence has taken away what little trust there was in our Social Services ministry. Would the Premier tell us how public confidence can be maintained in the Ministry of Social Services when actions such as this are taking place and people like Matthew are not protected?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's my understanding that the minister has requested the superintendent of family and child service to review the ministry's role in this case, and I understand that that review will be completed by the middle of next month.
V. Anderson: It is not good enough to have the people who were involved in not delivering the service be the
[ Page 10223 ]
people who are looking into why the service was not delivered. I say to the Premier: will you undertake today to commit that there be an independent inquiry of why Matthew and his mother did not get the kind of service and support that was due them? Will you undertake for an independent inquiry into this very important matter?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The ministry is quite aware of this very sad and tragic circumstance for young Matthew Vaudreuil. I understand that it was working very closely with the police investigating this matter back in 1992. That investigation was completed. It led to charges, and of course, criminal proceedings have occurred. As a result of the information gained during that period and other information, the ministry, as I said, is conducting, and will conclude, an investigation. That will be available the middle of next month.
The Speaker: Your final supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: Once again we see that things are being done behind closed doors. Last year we asked that there be an independent review of the whole social services system, so that these things, which continue to happen again and again, will not be repeated. In light of this latest action, will the Premier now undertake to make sure that there is an independent review of the whole social services system in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This government's track record in dealing with tragic circumstances, such as the one that has just been talked about, is very clear. We're prepared not only to acknowledge and review mistakes that have been made in the past but also to act on them. I think that this government's handling of some of the circumstances around Jericho school and the very legitimate complaints regarding abuses that took place there, the role the government has taken in dealing with the victims and their families, the way that that has been investigated by people of the stature of Tom Berger, a retired Supreme Court judge, and the way that new facilities were made available for the deaf in Burnaby are the approach to deal with real people in a fair and just way. Our government's record is among the best in this province's history.
PEAT MARWICK REVIEW OF B.C. FERRY CORPORATION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. I have in my hand a copy of the Peat Marwick review of B.C. Ferries that was completed two years ago but never, interestingly, released to taxpayers. We had to obtain copies of it through the Freedom of Information Act.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
J. Weisgerber: Can the minister explain why he found it necessary to delete whole sections of that report before releasing it to us? What is the minister afraid of? Why is he afraid to reveal the cost drivers and lurking expenditures identified by...?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. G. Clark: I want to disabuse the member of any notion that I, personally, took a black felt pen through the report. I had no idea the member received it. I'm delighted that he took advantage of that excellent piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, to access this information.
I want to assure the member.... I think the Peat Marwick report that the member has is probably a draft report. It did document some concerns about the Ferry Corporation, which the government shares. The southern Gulf Islands route has a subsidy of $12 million per year; some of the northern Gulf Islands are subsidized. This is extremely problematic in the 1990s as we move to make the Ferry Corporation more efficient. That's why we moved to peak pricing and shoulder pricing: to try to make it on a more private sector basis to save taxpayers money and maintain a high quality of service for our citizens.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. D. Miller tabled three annual reports: the 1992-93 annual report of the former Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services; the 1993 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board; and the 1993 annual report of the Labour Relations Board.
Hon. J. Cashore tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs for 1992-93.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and in the main House I call second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT
The Speaker: If the minister would like to wait just a moment until.... If members are going to leave, we will give them a few seconds to do so.
J. Weisgerber: While we're waiting, could I have leave to table a document received under the Freedom of Information Act?
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Petter: It is with a great deal of pride that I stand before you today with Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act, in my hand. This bill represents an unprecedented partnership among communities, business, environmentalists, first nations, workers and government to renew B.C.'s forests and to strengthen our commitment to forest workers and their communities. The forest renewal plan is a major departure, a fundamental change in the way we manage our forests. This government has developed the first genuinely long-term plan to sustain B.C.'s forests and the forest economy, not just for the next few years but for generations.
Bill 32 will enshrine in legislation a commitment to provide the resources we need to protect our forests, water and wildlife, so that future generations will have abundant forests that sustain them both environmentally and economically. This is a plan that we can all be proud of, that we can all commit to, and in which all of us can win.
For generations we've believed that B.C.'s forest lands have held the key to our prosperity. That belief has been a
[ Page 10224 ]
source of pride and optimism for all British Columbians. The promise of forest wealth includes good jobs, thriving communities, economic prosperity and a bountiful environment for all British Columbians.
Today forest resources remain at the heart of this great province. They continue to support key public services and a quality of life that I'm sure all members would agree is second to none. There are some 94,000 direct jobs in the forest sector economy. The livelihoods of another 140,000 British Columbians depend indirectly on the forest sector. That amounts to a contribution of about $10 billion to B.C.'s gross domestic product and more than half of all B.C. exports. Unfortunately, however, governments for too many years have taken our forests for granted. They have neglected long-term stewardship; too much has been taken from the forests and too little has been put back. Decades of the shortsighted policies of those previous governments have left us with an unfortunate legacy of wasteful forest practices, damage to our environment and harvest levels which are not sustainable if we continue with current forest management practices.
[2:30]
The timber supply review now underway indicates that if we don't change the way we manage our forests, harvest levels could decline by 15 to 30 percent over the next 50 years, and thousands of jobs would be lost. We also face the challenge of adding more value to the wood we cut, because the truth of the matter is that over the last 30 years the number of jobs per thousand cubic metres of wood harvested has dropped by almost 50 percent. If we continue down this same path, we will continue to lose our forests, and thousands of British Columbians will lose their jobs. This government has no intention of letting that happen. We know that a much brighter future is possible, but it's a future that requires change -- change in the way we manage our forests and change now to renew our forests by putting back into them more of what has been taken out. We need to create more jobs and to stabilize communities by doing more things with the wood we extract. We need to work to bring people together, rather than playing those same old games of setting people apart.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: I know it's a foreign concept to members opposite that people might come together and work in partnership, but let me assure them that British Columbians are tired of those same old games. They're tired of people picking fights for their own sake and not putting the interest in the future of the forests ahead of partisan political considerations.
It is in this spirit of cooperative partnership -- one that I hope even the opposition might find itself able to join in -- that the Forest Renewal Act and the forest renewal plan is being established to take more of the wealth being created by the forest and to put it back into the forests to create the jobs, stabilize the communities and secure the future of our economy on which we all rely.
Bill 32 establishes Forest Renewal B.C. This will be a partnership agency, comprised of all groups with a stake in our forests, charged with the responsibility of managing and directing a major program of forest investments. Bill 32 sets out a framework for cooperative relationships that Forest Renewal B.C. will establish in undertaking its duties. These include the establishment of five working-level committees that will advise on new programs and initiatives in the following areas.
First is renewing our forest through long-term investments in improved silviculture, stewardship and other forest-tending activities -- activities that we've seen used in other jurisdictions with great success, but have not been extensively used in British Columbia -- such as thinning, pruning, spacing and fertilization. These new investments will be in addition to, not instead of, existing commitments to silviculture and replanting already underway. It will also increase the lands that are available for planting new trees, including conversion of some marginal agricultural and other lands into new forests. There will be further research and development to achieve higher timber values, including getting better forest inventory information, evaluating improved silvicultural practices and better strategies to counteract disease, which is a serious threat to our forests.
Secondly, to promote activities that increase the value we receive from our wood, a committee will be charged with the responsibility to come up with an investment strategy to ensure that we get more value and more jobs from the wood that we produce in this province. Some of the programs that that committee will direct are programs aimed at providing start-up and expansion assistance for companies that can produce and sell value-added wood products and at having research and development on new technologies, products and markets for value-added wood product companies.
I should say that there are some incredible opportunities opening up around the world. In Japan, for example, there is a tremendous demand for new housing stock. If we can, through market research and technology, provide the products necessary for that Japanese market, we can do tremendous things for our economy in the process. In addition, the government will be pursuing better access to wood supply for companies so they can make greater contributions to our economy.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: I hear a former member of the discredited Social Credit Party saying that we're eight years behind. Eight years ago was when these problems were being created -- the problems of overcutting and bad forest stewardship that we are now trying to correct. I would suggest the member just listen to what is necessary and what needs to be done in partnership, not in the way that the previous government....
Interjections.
Hon. A. Petter: Once again, the members opposite unfortunately don't understand the concept of partnership and what working together can mean.
A third major area in which Forest Renewal B.C. will direct investments under the guidance of one of the committees to be established is investing in land resource rehabilitation to restore and enhance environmental values. There's much that can be done to restore our environmental values in forests, not only for environmental purposes but for economic purposes as well. For example, the rehabilitation of rivers, streams and watersheds and restoring hillsides by repairing and removing unnecessary roads can have tremendous benefits in terms of bringing lands back into production and enhancing the tourist and recreational values of those lands.
In addition, through making investments to protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats, we can achieve tremendous gains not only for the environment but for our economy as well. We envisage much more research into
[ Page 10225 ]
environmentally sound forestry practices to ensure that the devastation that has occurred in the past will not be repeated in the future.
Finally, working to provide good jobs in the forests to sustain current workers in their communities into the future is another major goal of Forest Renewal B.C. We expect to create a forests skills council, which will include government, forest company and worker representatives. It will coordinate and evaluate existing training and develop new training programs where needed. We know that investments in skills and training can produce tremendous dividends for workers and make us more competitive. Specific training programs will be developed for workers in the woods and in manufacturing. Aboriginal people will be assured full access to training opportunities, as they will to all other aspects of the forest renewal plan.
Additional investments to strengthen communities throughout the province will include funding for community and regional economic development, coordination to ensure that communities receive the maximum benefit from all government economic development programs and assistance for those forest communities that wish to pursue economic diversification to strengthen their economic base. When we work together, when all forest interests come together to meet the challenges, we can indeed secure a better future for everyone.
Bill 32 ensures that a fair share of wealth from the forests will be invested back into forest lands and into the jobs and communities that depend upon those lands. This is a major departure from the past, when government made a lot of promises but did little in the way of action and there was no long-term commitment. Specifically, this legislation will do what has never been done before in this province: it will direct a dedicated and specific source of revenue to an agency that has a specific mandate to renew and enhance our forests and forest economy. Specifically, this legislation will direct the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to pay to Forest Renewal B.C., on an ongoing basis, the increased revenue from the stumpage and royalty changes taking place after April 30. These higher stumpage rates will give us an average net amount of about $400 million a year -- that's about $2 billion over five years -- to invest back into the forests for future generations. These new funds...
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: ...will be dedicated to the forest renewal plan; they cannot be directed into general government revenues.
I think I heard a member asking what happens if the prices go up and down. Let me tell you that that's what's so unique and special about this program, because as prices go up and down the return to the agency will fluctuate, but the agency can maintain a consistent, actuarially sound program of investment that can look not just to the next two or three years but also to the next two or three generations. That's leadership and vision. I regret that the members opposite seem unable to grasp the concept, because royal commissions and those in the forest industry have been crying for years for a relationship to be established between the wealth that's produced by the forest and the need to invest back into the forest for future generations. Those members who sit opposite who were part of previous governments and failed to make that commitment have no right to stand up now and criticize this government, which has moved forward in this progressive way.
In addition, Bill 32 ensures clear accountability to the public for the effective and wise use of all funds expended by Forest Renewal B.C. Forest Renewal B.C. will be a partnership agency of all groups with a stake in our forests. It will report, through me as Minister of Forests, to the Legislature. In addition, its business plan will be laid before the Legislature and referred to the standing committee for full debate, airing and scrutiny by members of the Legislature.
I'm very proud of what we're accomplishing by working in partnership to develop the forest renewal plan. Indeed, I'm proud of the partnership we have already developed through this plan. I know that members opposite find it difficult to deal with a plan that has such broad-based public support, but I would encourage them to get onside and get involved, because if we don't work together, if we work against each other, we will not be able to make the changes to remain competitive, to have a strong economy and to ensure a future for our workers. On this issue, above all else, we need to set aside the differences of the past and move together in a new cooperative environment. We need to put aside those short-term partisan considerations that seem to preoccupy some members of the opposition and look to the long-term future of our province.
This government has a vision for a better future for British Columbia, a more certain future with a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. The forest renewal plan is a key part of an overall strategy to address all land use challenges we face as British Columbians. Other parts of that strategy are already in place, and together they form a solid basis for a sustainable future. The timber supply review will help us to understand and determine sustainable rates of harvest in the future. Because of past practices, the news coming out of that review isn't always good. It's better that we face the truth now and deal with it, rather than continue to bury our heads in the sand as previous governments have done. We are not prepared to do that.
We need to move away from land use conflict and confrontation. In order to do that, we have established the Commission on Resources and Environment to bring groups together, a protected areas strategy to double our parks and wilderness area, as well as a Treaty Commission to deal with the long-outstanding issues of aboriginal land rights and to produce greater stability and certainty in respect of our land base for all British Columbians. In addition, the challenge of forest practices and coming forward with positive forest harvesting guidelines is being met through a new Forest Practices Code, about which I am sure all of us will have more to say in the upcoming session. To meet the challenges of securing good jobs, stable forest communities and economic prosperity for British Columbia, the forest renewal plan takes a share of the wealth from our forests and invests it back into the forests where it all begins.
Together, these initiatives form a comprehensive vision for a healthy sustainable future for all the values of our lands and for all British Columbians. Bill 32 expresses commitment to the forests in this province, as well as commitment to a more certain future based on a healthy environment and a prosperous and sustainable forest economy for all British Columbians. I believe that the sense of partnership that has started to emerge with this initiative can help us to come together on all issues of forest management.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Will the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca please come to order.
[ Page 10226 ]
The hon. member has been interjecting ever since we started debate on second reading of the bill, and I would ask the hon. member to please show some respect for the member speaking.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I urge you not to be too hard on the member. I know the Premier was in Prince George, and the measure of support for this initiative in that community has no doubt unsettled the member during the course of this debate. The obvious solution for the member is to not fight a plan that speaks to the future and to the hopes and aspirations of all British Columbians, but rather to get onside and work with this government and with British Columbians in making this plan a reality. With that, I move the bill be read a second time now.
[2:45]
F. Gingell: I can assure you that I strongly believe it is critically important for British Columbia to work hard in 1994 towards restoring the environment, our forests and our economy. But if one stops to think about the best way of doing that to make sure that the greatest number and value of resources available to accomplish that are focused upon and used for the very good purposes and intent of this, the very last thing you do is set up another Crown corporation.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, there is more bureaucracy and opportunity for more questionable appointments to boards of directors, more opportunities for per diem rates and travel expenses, and opportunities to rent more office space or use the resources for the wrong purpose. I know -- at least, I am assured by those who have more knowledge than I -- that this minister's ministry is full of competent, capable people. Why don't we let them get on with the job?
In his opening remarks this minister said we were doing something unique: we were going to take these additional revenues and ensure that they're used for these purposes. Well, this isn't unique. There have been intentions to do this kind of thing time after time in the past.
The best example, I believe, is the municipal revenue-sharing fund. They didn't put new taxes on various consumer products; they took a share -- calculated a share of the provincial social services tax, the natural resource royalties and other revenues, and the personal income tax -- and government made a commitment that this money would be spent on municipal grants and municipal infrastructure. And what's happened? They've managed to accumulate $360 million in that fund. So in this year's budget this government decided to do away with it; the fund has been cancelled. What a pity. All kinds of important things need to be done in this province. Certainly, as I've said, restoring the environment, our forests and our economy are an important part of that. But important, too, was the restoration of our municipal infrastructure. I certainly hope this government moves along, in cooperation with local and federal government, in that program, because they are all important to us.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I'm all in favour of restoring our forests and protecting them. I'm not in favour of another Crown corporation. Crown corporations are becoming a larger and larger part of our provincial government, and they are the most unaccountable organizations we have. They report late. There is no proper opportunity in the normal course of events to deal with their budgets. I must say I'm pleased that this bill requires this new corporation to table budgets and business plans. But if they'd thought it through, they would have decided that this particular organization perhaps would have a different year-end. I know what happens in this House: the reports that get filed -- the reports that were filed today by the Minister of Labour -- are all one year late. In fact, he's doing better than most ministers. But all those reports are for the year ended March 31, 1993. We're always dealing with these things in the past. We need to have a reporting process that allows business plans and budgets to be done on a current basis.
When we come to the particular issues involved in the BC Forest Renewal Act, there are some other items that make one stop for a moment and worry about it. In January the Premier went on TV and made his famous statement of no new taxes. When in opposition, all these members of the government accepted, recognized and spoke ad nauseam on the issue that all forms of government revenue are forms of taxes. These additional royalties and stumpage fees that are being brought in for the purpose of funding the forest renewal plan are in fact additional taxes.
The important issue is to ensure that everything that is planned is funded and able to go forward. All of us who have bought a home or dealt in any way with these matters know that the values of all things -- prices in homes, gold, crude oil or lumber -- go up and come down. It concerns me that the whole of this funding process is to be based on the hope that currently high lumber prices stay high.
If they'd forgotten about a Crown corporation, decided to do those things which are important, done them within their own ministry, not rented any more office space, not employed any more people, not appointed their friends and supporters to the boards of directors so they could pay them per diems, they'd have been perfectly capable of doing those things that are right, things which they know and we know are important to ensure the sustainability of our forest industry.
From the various things that have been said, from the remarks made by the minister, from the items that have been in the paper, one even has the feeling that the whole silviculture industry is going to be changed. The funds for this program are partially going to be used to subsidize silviculture wages. We all know that being a good planter is a skill. It's a physically demanding job for younger people, people who need to be fit. It's important for us to ensure that it is done properly. I fail to understand why this government isn't able just to expand the programs it presently has without creating some aura of trying to change things.
In the end, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating. It will be measured by the state of our forest industry five, ten and 15 years from now. It's very important to us all.
I'd just like to close with the warning and the concern that I started with: we really don't need to have a new Crown corporation. I understand and I believe that the skills, knowledge, resources and personnel are in the Ministry of Forests. Why do we have to complicate our lives all the time by setting up these new organizations -- other than for the opportunities they present to a government bent on further patronage?
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to stand up and speak to what is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Legislature in many years with respect to the economy and the communities of the province.
[ Page 10227 ]
Let me say to begin with that this comes as no surprise to those who have been observing the industry, including those people who participated in establishing and perhaps providing submissions to the Royal Commission on Forest Resources and those who read the recommendations that came out of that commission. The industry, those who made submissions, and the royal commission's recommendations moved government toward this end product. In the movement toward establishing a Crown agency for forest management, recommendations were made as to how that Crown agency could better manage and direct revenues from the working forest back into forest renewal.
In starting this debate, I'd like to move directly to some of the comments made by the minister when he introduced this bill. Then I'd like to apportion my time to talk about the sections of the bill in principle, and speak in conclusion about what we feel some of the strengths of this bill are. I believe there are strengths in some areas of this bill as well as some fundamental weaknesses in terms of what this bill represents.
In his comments the minister suggested that it is important to try to add more value to the wood we cut in British Columbia. If I copied them correctly, I think his exact words were: "to add more value to the wood that we cut." Part of the problem with the economic models that we look at in terms of resource extraction in the province -- whether it's forestry, mining or any other resource -- is that our basic set of underlying assumptions and principles is the notion that we can add value to that resource through the extraction of the raw material. I think that assumption is fundamentally flawed. We cannot add any greater value to that resource through its extraction; all we do is simply transfer that value from its form as a standing tree to some other kind of saleable product. That value is going to be determined in large measure by the vagaries of the market, much of which is external and over which we have very little control.
[3:00]
So we come down to the root issue with respect to financing: this is a Crown agency whose industry-driven financing is based on stumpage. We have to recognize that in a bullish market, at a time when log prices are extremely high, the values that may be set against stumpage may be equally high. Industry may be able to afford that and, by affording that money, may be able to put it into government coffers and therefore finance this agency. Let us not forget that the people of British Columbia, within 30 days of this bill coming into force, will be putting in $75 million out of central revenue. It is intended by this bill that the industry will then, over the subsequent years, start to finance this agency. That should come as absolutely no surprise. Nobody should sit back in shock or horror when they look at that, because clearly that was the direction taken with respect to the royal commission's findings and industry submissions, and by many people on both the labour and industry sides of the forest sector.
We understand the concept of what you are trying to put in place. The difficulty that we in the Alliance party have with that concept is that if we become dependent upon that stumpage level, upon industry being able to finance to that degree, we're going to create a dependency within this new agency that may or may not be able to be sustained, with the vagaries of the international market and as we change or transfer the value of the standing timber into product for offshore sale.
The second problem we have, with respect to the minister's first comment about adding more value to the wood we cut, is that on a per capita basis the greatest value can be realized in the reman industries, where people will take a sawn product and make it into a finished product, therefore making several times greater the transfer of value from the standing timber to a finished piece of wood which can then be sold into the European or American markets -- or into Asian markets, where possible.
What we had hoped to see in the BC Forest Renewal Act was not just a movement toward a greater degree of control over the manner by which timber will be cut and come into market, but to a certain extent the breaking down of the vertical integration of major forest companies to allow a greater amount of supply to actually come into reman industries, which can in fact transfer a greater degree of value from the timber being cut. That's a critical component of the necessity for seeing a change in the structure under which tenure is going to be granted in the forest sector.
On the second aspect of the minister's remarks, when he said that Bill 32 will create jobs and stabilize our communities, let me say that the Alliance is certainly very keen to see rural communities in the province provided greater stability through some form of designation of a working forest and through the maintenance of timber supply and fibre supply from that working forest, so there can be some reasonable guarantees that that supply will be long-term and renewable.
We also believe that if we are going to actually see the creation of jobs and the stability of our communities, we're going to have to tackle the thorny and rather difficult issue of the vertical integration of major forest companies. This minister has been extremely generous in affording me time to meet with both him and members of his staff to talk about the reman industry and the changing nature of tenure within the forest sector. Therefore I know that this is a difficult issue for the government to tackle.
I was listening to the lead speaker from the official opposition to try to determine where they are coming from on this bill, as to whether they're really in favour or opposed. It strikes us as passing strange that at 5 o'clock in the evening this minister came in and tabled one of the most important bills this province has seen -- after the print deadlines with respect to the newspapers and literally minutes away from the television cameras going on to provide the 6 o'clock news. In conjunction with the tabling of the legislation in this Legislature, he held a rather well orchestrated and constructed news conference here, where representatives of the forest industry, the major corporations and representatives from the IWA and other major unions were standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I see that we've got the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale pounding his desk, saying congratulations.
That is not the mandate of this government, to simply look to the stewardship of the forests through the major forest companies and the largest trade unions in the province. Let us recognize that the mandate of this government is to look after the interests of the people of British Columbia with respect to their resource, which is the forest resource. It is not, and should not be, the purview of major forest companies and major unions that operate within them. Let's be very clear that with respect to those lands that are made available, there is a finite capacity for us to continue to harvest, no matter what kind of harvest technologies we have, and there is a finite capacity for us to be able to take that harvest, deliver it to market and maximize profit from the sales of the finished product.
[ Page 10228 ]
The Forest Renewal Act does not take tenure into account and how tenure is going to be assigned, although we have the setting up of some committees that will be done largely under the control of the Forests minister's office. It does not look at the question of the annual allowable cut, whether or not the annual allowable cut is going to be increased and what kind of long-term projection there's going to be. Further, this bill also does not do what is a most fundamental and rudimentary part of the management of any resource. That is to put in place a comprehensive land inventory for British Columbia so that we can recognize what those finite limits are.
I don't think that everything in this bill is bad, and I am not so terribly outraged at the fact that a Crown agency was set up to manage the forests. I don't think the critical problem is whether or not a Crown corporation is set up to manage the forests. What is important to note is the extent to which the government is intervening with respect to management and future harvest directions. On the day that this came forward, I said that this was essentially an unprecedented intervention into the free market system. I believe that is so. Whether that is what we desire or not has to be borne out by the text of Bill 32. If we look at some of the aspects within Bill 32, we can recognize that this government has centralized an enormous amount of control in the Minister of Forests and those members of the various committees and subcommittees struck in this Crown corporation, which is going to be run out of the office of the Minister of Forests.
Again we have to ask ourselves the same question. If this Crown corporation, which is going to be enormously expensive in the long term.... I defy any member of the government to stand up and show me a Crown corporation that has not cost the people of British Columbia and/or Canada money over time. They run into the red; they cost people money; Crown corporations cost money. If we're going to embark upon that route, then we have to ask ourselves: what is the benefit that people will gain from going along that path? Similarly, we have to ask ourselves if the major forest companies are going to see an enormous increase in stumpage. That is a cost to the major companies. Yet they have their agencies and representatives standing up in front of the television cameras saying what a great deal it is. You have to ask yourself why. What is in it for the major forest companies if they're prepared to back the government on a deal that's going to cost them enormous amounts of money through increased stumpage? Similarly, you see that the major unions are saying this is going to provide long-term job security. You have to ask yourself how that is going to be accomplished by what is included in Bill 32.
I know that as we discuss in principle, we can only talk about the concepts that the government has introduced and the principles of those concepts, as to their viability. In committee stage, however, we will be able to get down to the very detailed, clause-by-clause analysis of this bill, and it deserves to be analyzed clause by clause. In principle, I do not support the creation of Crown corporations. In principle, I believe that it creates larger, more expensive government that will incur greater and greater debt to the taxpayer. Yet if we look at the history of the forest industry in this province, we recognize that something had to be done. It is quite clear that we could not continue business as usual.
It's interesting to note that the minister tied aspects of this bill together with CORE and the aboriginal land decisions of this government. I think there is one other component the minister should have alluded to here, and that is the forest practices act and the extent to which it is going to become one of the four corners or pillars of this government's new approach to forestry. If we look at those four corners, we have to ask ourselves whether at the end of the day the overall manner in which our resource is managed is going to change. Is it going to divert revenues that are coming out of this resource into the rural communities of this province? Is it going to provide not just a recognition of sustainability...? Indeed, I believe sustainable development is an oxymoron to the extent that you cannot have sustained growth and development within the industry under current practices or even under revised practices. What I think we needed to have in here is a statement of the finite limits to which we could have continued to expand and harvest before we needed to move to alternative sources.
With respect to our pulp industry, there are, and should be, alternative sources. I have discussed this with the minister directly. We, as legislators, are going to have to start taking seriously the movement toward alternative sources of fibre to assist our pulp industry in moving away from its demand upon our softwood forests. Clearly, industrial hemp comes to mind. I know there are people who would argue that we can't, politically, introduce that. I'm suggesting that we must start to look beyond our traditional blinkered limits to find those alternative sources.
Similarly, no matter how this Crown corporation is struck, if we build job dependency that is determined by the expenditures of this Crown corporation, when we have a decline through international markets in the amount of revenue that can be taken back through our forest industry, who is going to pick up the cost of maintaining those job programs under this Crown corporation? Clearly, the taxpayer will end up picking up the cost of greater expenditures within government. The benefit is questionable, because we have not recognized finite limits -- the fact that there is going to be a diminished workforce in the traditional forest sector as we know it today. That is a reality, and it is dishonest of this government to take to people in rural communities anything but the truth. We need to build an economy that looks toward that reality and recognizes that alternatives must be found in terms of the supply of raw material and the size of workforce that will be actively involved in the working forest. Thirdly, we have to recognize that within a defined working forest, supply is going to be determined only by our capacity to renew. It isn't just a question of spending money on renewal, but of how that renewal is going to best serve those communities that are dependent upon it. There is nothing in this bill telling us that this government is tackling those questions.
The fourth aspect of this bill that I think needs to be addressed is the whole question of the aboriginal component. At every opportunity I have had in this House, I have charged that this government is hiding from that issue. It has certainly not escaped my attention, and I think people ought to know, that at the time this most important bill comes forward, the Aboriginal Affairs estimates are moved into the other House. When the part of the bill involving the aboriginal first nations comes forward, as important as it is, why can't we devote our full attention to this debate?
[3:15]
These things don't happen by accident, and I believe this government is shirking its responsibility to come forward and have a full and open debate on that land use strategy. All through Bill 32 there is reference to powers, authorities and jurisdictions, and there is reference to providing. I believe the words the minister himself used were that full access would be assured to aboriginal first nations in terms of the forest resource. Given that most of the land in this province is under either private jurisdiction or land tenure already set,
[ Page 10229 ]
that tells us that the movement toward joint stewardship is a key component of the strategy of this government. We deserve to know how it's going to work, what its function is going to be, what jurisdiction is going to be provided, and how that's going to interface with the existing communities that currently depend upon that resource.
Under the CORE program that sets aside 12 percent or more, another issue needs to have full venue here for debate and requires every single MLA to stand up and state their position. Within that document, it is very clear that if any of that land should at some point become alienated by aboriginal jurisdiction, an additional set-aside will be put in place. You cannot look at this bill in isolation from what that CORE program is putting forward, yet this government is not introducing the totality of the debate. It's like trying to debate a jigsaw puzzle when they've only given you half the pieces. You can't see the full picture, and the people of British Columbia deserve nothing less than the full picture in terms of the overall land strategy this government has with respect to the forests, the aboriginal strategy with respect to CORE and set-asides and park management, and how they're going to implement this new job strategy to keep people employed.
This bill is a brave and bold new attempt at a government-run Crown corporation moving to put the long arms of government over the forest industry. In this process we have to ask ourselves what is going to happen to the community input that was so desperately desired and demanded, and in fact was requested within the CORE process and the overall strategy set out by Stephen Owen. Where is the community input into this? Where is the notion of the community forest that this government ran on and promised? Where is this government committing itself to the full and proper authority of local government in land use decisions? Where does interface take place between local government and this Crown corporation? It is not spelled out in the bill. Nowhere in here does it tell us how that is going to work, save that this corporation is going to be able to enter into agreements with individuals, first nations, business interests, institutions and local governments. How is community input, developed through the local resource use planning system -- a process that is well underway in many communities around this province -- going to be interfaced with this rather centralized form of government control?
Although I have no evidence to support it, I suspect that there must have been a lot more discussed and negotiated in the back rooms than we see in this legislation. In order for the major forest companies to have bought into what has to be one of the greatest interventions in the private sector in the history of the province -- because of the magnitude of this resource, which is the primary resource in the B.C. economy -- there had to be something more on the table. The question is: what did this government commit to that is not in this bill and that the major forest companies have bought into? What kinds of guarantees were provided to union workers through the union executives who sat in on this negotiation?
My suggestion that something more is on the table could be directed to two areas: first is a guarantee on tenure and supply, because that is clearly what the industry requires; and second is the question of the annual allowable cut and its potential expansion. The minister should tell us if this is not so; he should clarify absolutely that this is not so. And he should tell us how the set-aside lands that will be alienated with respect to the aboriginal land question are going to have no or a limited impact on the working forests of the province.
When I began, I said that Bill 32 was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we've seen since this government came to power, and I believe it is true. What would we have preferred to see in this bill, and what will we be speaking to in committee stage? Let me summarize the Alliance position in four general areas.
One, I believe that this could be done without the creation of a Crown corporation. It could be done through government legislation that would change the system by which the Ministry of Forests operates. The introduction of a land use secretariat would bring together Lands, Environment and Forests, and it would also provide protection for foreshore and estuary areas that are under threat because of current forest practices. That's the first thing we could have done. Had we done that, we would have been able to move this same agenda forward, but that land use secretariat would have kept this government accountable to the Legislative Assembly. A Crown corporation has limited accountability, notwithstanding the provision for debate on their business plan.
Two, we would have liked to have seen a consistent position taken with respect to access to the resource in a defined working forest. This government simply must conduct a comprehensive land inventory so that we have an understanding of exactly what's in the bank account. If it doesn't, a subsequent government will have to. As we extract from our bank account and expend that money, no one can tell us what the balance actually is. Some theoretical material is provided. CORE is now attempting to do a land inventory, but that inventory is not available to any degree. That inventory must be provided. The Alliance would have preferred that there be a commitment to that in this new forest legislation.
Three, we must have a recognition that there will be no special deals, special privileges or special jurisdictions; every British Columbian will be equal to every other in terms of access to the public resources of this province. This government must commit to that. It must commit that as we start to look toward the land use planning strategy, we do so recognizing limits to growth and equal access within those limits to those people who are empowered to see this delivered.
Four, members of the Alliance would have liked to have seen this government find the intestinal fortitude to come forward and break down the vertical integration of the forest majors so that we would have a guaranteed supply of more fibre for small operators, the reman industry and people in smaller communities. Those are the people who are attempting to get a larger percentage of timber supply to feed the smaller, decentralized sawmills that have made this province what it is today.
That's what this government should have accomplished in this bill. We believe that it has only gone partway to attempting two aspects of the four. But while we recommend that we give absolute scrutiny to every aspect of Bill 32 in committee stage, we must at least reserve some applause, although limited, to this government for attempting the effort. This government has done some good things with respect to the forest industry. This government has made a move with respect to CORE, the introduction of a forest practices act and an attempt at Bill 32. Clearly, this is not all bad or to be discarded. We need to take the principles established here and fashion them around the four major areas the Alliance believes are missing from Bill 32. We have attempted to provide constructive and sensible debate on this bill. It's difficult to get into detail in second reading. At
[ Page 10230 ]
committee stage we will have much more time, and we hope that this minister will be forthcoming to hear our concerns.
The intent of this bill is to move government more and more into the private sector. In principle, that is wrong. The government should be regulating through legislation, not providing itself with a greater degree of control over what must and should be a private sector enterprise.
I appreciate having the time to speak to Bill 32. As we move to committee stage, the members of the Alliance will speak strongly in favour of reform and change to this package, and will be introducing amendments. We serve notice that this bill is not one that should be moving to Committee A, so that all members of this Legislative Assembly and the people of this province will have an opportunity to see exactly what this government has up its sleeve.
D. Schreck: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Schreck: In the gallery is Mr. Herb Weber, the instructor of a pre-employment program at the pre-employment centre in North Vancouver. With Mr. Weber are ten of his outstanding students. Would the House please join me in making Mr. Weber and his students welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: Before I take my place in debate on Bill 32, I would ask leave of the House to allow the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology to sit at 3:30 for the purposes of organization.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Miller: I feel very proud to stand and take my place in second reading debate on Bill 32. I have carefully listened to some of the statements made by members of the opposition, and I must say that I am left a little confused after hearing some of those comments. Perhaps that will be clarified as we hear succeeding speakers, but at this juncture it appears that the opposition doesn't quite know what they want to do or what position they want to take with respect to Bill 32 and what I consider to be breathtaking and significant announcements about how we intend to deal with an industry, workers and communities in transition.
It's important that we briefly reflect on some of the history that led us to this debate today. The member who just spoke accused the government of massive interference in the private sector. If I'm not mistaken, the thread running through his comments today was that we should intervene in the private sector and break up companies. I'm sure I heard him say that. So I'm a bit confused.
I'm also confused, because 96 percent of the timber in this province is owned by the people of this province. We are partners. We are players in the game. It seems that if there has been a failure of forest policy in the past, it's that governments in the past have refused to be partners and players in this game. They've taken this position: "Well, industry knows best; we won't interfere." Even though the timber is owned by the public and we gain a considerable amount of revenue by selling that timber through our stumpage and royalty charges, previous governments have said: "We're not prepared to take an active role. We have no role; we have no place." We're suffering now because of that.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Let us contrast that hands-off approach, which led us to the problems we have today, with the approach this government has taken in terms of how we got to Bill 32. Following the first Premier's summit on the economy, held here in Victoria at Pearson College, the Premier brought together business, labour and community leaders, and economists, and talked about the economy in British Columbia, and how we can make that economy stronger. What measures can we take together to make this economy strong and prosperous for all of the participants in the economy?
[3:30]
Out of that first Premier's summit came the notion that there should be sectoral agreements -- that we should take various sectors of industry in this province, gather people together who have common interests and try to come up with a plan that will serve all of their interests and thus all of the interests in the province. I was particularly pleased to have been the minister when we developed the Forest Sector Strategy Committee.
I hear members opposite talking about breaking up the tenures and saying that this only represents the interests of the majors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the people who make up the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, who, in partnership with government, developed this plan. The largest industry we have in this province was represented on that committee. Industry -- the medium-sized businesses, the medium-sized independent....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member for Prince George-Omineca should simply listen for a while. He might learn something.
The medium-sized businesses, very small value-added manufacturers, communities and the mayor of Prince George were represented on that committee. As part of our backup team, a staff person from the Union of B.C. Municipalities provided invaluable help to the work of that committee. Government was there at the table, in some sense pushing the process. The three main trade unions in the forest sector, aboriginal representatives and a representative of the environmental community were at the table. Together we sat down and developed a plan in terms of how we're going to deal with this industry in transition -- I've got to say that this is an industry in transition. I'll speak just a touch about the history and why I think this plan is long overdue.
Finally, with respect to the makeup, for the first time in the history of this province, which has seen far too much of this phony polarization.... You know, a feature of my political life growing up in this province is this foolish polarization that's promoted for nothing more than cheap political gain. I got on a plane in 1992 and took a trip to Japan, and I took with me representatives of the forest industry -- again, in all its dimensions; I took representatives of labour and aboriginal groups. As we got on the plane in Vancouver, I happened to talk to a fellow from the trade union movement and a couple of people from the forest industry. I said: "Look, do you honestly think the day might come when, rather than this phony polarization, we might be able to actually sit down together and try to plot out our future together -- put aside some of these artificial divisions and actually sit down and put our heads together?" It was a resounding yes. There was a willingness to do that kind of thing, and we've done it through the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. Notwithstanding the very picayune criticisms of the members over there, the strength of this plan is that it was not conceived in the back room by government; it was forged through a partnership of all of the various players represented in the industry in this
[ Page 10231 ]
province. That's its underlying strength, and that's why it will succeed.
I want to talk about reforestation and the history of the industry. I hear people talking about how we can get more value. What has been our history? I suppose, like many people in other countries, in our developing phase we came to this land, and it was covered with that resource. We did nothing. There wasn't a penny put into that land to produce that valuable resource. But two things are evident. One is that it's renewable if it's managed properly; in other words, it's sustainable, inasmuch as that term has a definition. If it's managed properly, we will always have a forest resource in this province, unlike the resources that are not renewable. When we take gas out of the ground, it has a limited, finite supply. Properly managed, trees and forest land will produce a supply that could be used by succeeding generations. The leader of the Alliance talked -- erroneously, in my view -- about its finite ability. Sweden has half the forest land base of British Columbia; their current harvest is about the same. What does that tell you?
W. Hurd: Private ownership.
Hon. D. Miller: The Liberal Forests critic says private ownership. If the Liberal Party policy is that we should sell off the Crown forest lands into private hands, we on this side of the House reject that categorically.
The reason is very clear and very simple: they invested in their land base. I talked about, when we first came....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: We'll get into that. I'll go through the history, and perhaps the Liberal members will support this bill as a result. In fact, I'll make the claim now that I would be mightily surprised if any member of any opposition party votes against this bill. They will be voting in favour of this legislation.
An Hon. Member: Don't stake your life on it.
Hon. D. Miller: I won't stake my life on it.
But let's go through the history. Our ancestors came across this bountiful land and started to harvest without much thought. Before the turn of the century, scientific foresters from Europe started to come over. That was the beginning of scientific forestry, and for its time, in my view, it was remarkably futuristic. The notion was brought in that if we managed the land properly, there would be that succeeding crop of trees to supply that industry. But it was premised on a fundamental principle that I don't think is well understood.
W. Hurd: A secure land base.
Hon. D. Miller: And it's not a secure land base at all.
W. Hurd: Sure it is.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect to the Liberal Forests critic, he fails to appreciate that the true strength of the forest industry in this province is the forest land base.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: We'll get to that.
Scientific forestry. We started then to realize that after the first harvest, after we had harvested what nature had provided, we would be left with the land, and even through very careful management, that land would not produce a crop of trees that was equivalent in volume to the existing crop. Thus managed forest land.
If you have looked at the major report done in 1978 on the timber supply areas in this province, and if you have taken the time to be briefed on the timber supply review -- and I certainly hope that at least the Liberal Forests critic has done that -- you will see that there are a series of charts in those timber supply reviews that look exactly like a set of stairs. They describe the current practice and the current harvest rate, and then they show these descending sets of stairs, if you like, which show that over as much as a hundred years, in some cases -- and it varies from timber supply area to timber supply area -- we will eventually get down to what foresters describe as the long-run sustained yield, which is what the land is capable of producing in a managed way. It is less than the current harvest rates. That was predicted. In fact, it was the foundation of our setting up scientific forestry. It's been misconstrued, misinterpreted and misunderstood ever since. You talk about forestry being the most important industry in this province, and it is the most important. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, it is the most misunderstood. People simply don't take the time to look at the detail that is required to have that understanding.
On top of this bountiful supply, there is our approach to the market. By the way, the member should know that the marketplace in North America, at least, has never paid or established the proper price for wood. Wood has been a bargain for a hundred years, and even at today's prices -- though I know consumers find it difficult to accept -- it is a bargain. The reason is that we have never generated the kind of wealth from resource harvesting in the past that was required to be put back into the land to ensure that sustainability.
Let's look at the sad history of silviculture funds and why the Crown corporation makes so much sense. When I came into provincial politics in 1986, the Social Credit government of the day had just scrapped -- eliminated -- a forestry fund. It was probably the twelfth or thirteenth -- or twentieth, for that matter -- forestry fund that had been set up so that we would have a pot of money to draw on for silviculture.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: It was your colleague from Omineca who was the Minister of Forests briefly -- and thank God it was briefly.
It was called the steady state of forestry funding. You know, it was the sorry state of forestry funding. We had section 88 credits. Do you remember section 88, when the Crown had the obligation for reforestation? Do you remember the games that were played? Do the members recall those years when Social Credit was managing this province, when the taxpayers of this province subsidized the harvesting of trees and when we spent more out of general revenue than we generated from stumpage royalties? Do you recall those days, hon. member? Do you recall the terrible recession of 1981-83 that hit this province? Do you recall how ill-equipped the Social Credit government was at that time? Do you know what their solution at that time was? "We'll relax the rules. We'll bring in sympathetic administration. We'll simply say it's okay to leave good wood lying in the bush. We'll say it's
[ Page 10232 ]
okay to increase our exports. We'll say it's okay to degrade the environment, because we're in this terrible fix; we have no money." Do you recall that that was the Social Credit approach to forest management in this province?
On the market side -- boy, we were geniuses on the market side. Whenever the market went down, when the price of wood went down, what did our producers do? They jacked up production. They increased their volume production, because they knew that if they added an extra shift.... "There's no end to the wood, boys. Let's just crank up another shift. We can take a lower price, because we can just up our volume so much and flood the market." That's exactly what they did. That's exactly what our brilliant free enterprise approach to the market was.
Do you know why wood is now up and averaging $350 and more?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, $240, but it will go back up. Do you know why that is, hon. member? Do you have any idea? Do you know that now there is a relationship between supply and price that didn't exist before? Our means of dealing with that marketplace was simply to flood the market and crank up the volume. Now, quite frankly, because of the measures taken in the Pacific Northwest and in British Columbia, there is a relationship between supply and price. That's what you free-marketeers -- the people you always bill yourselves as -- keep talking about. You know what? I don't think you understand it very well. There actually is, in some cases, a relationship between supply and price. That's why we've now got a very high wood price and will have an even higher wood price. The simple fact is....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, could you protect me from that member for Prince George-Omineca? He just won't shut up. I'll make him a deal: I'll keep quiet when he's talking if he keeps quiet when I'm talking -- that is, if he's going to get up and talk on this bill. Maybe he's not.
L. Fox: I am.
Hon. D. Miller: He is. Okay. Well, we've got a deal then, hon. member. Thank you.
So for the first time we've got this relationship, and price will increase.
[3:45]
Of course, I also wonder at the wisdom of the United States administration that has just launched an extraordinary challenge on the 6.5 percent tariff on our lumber, when the end result of that is that they're just driving prices higher in the U.S. But I can't educate them and the members opposite at the same time.
We have a history of silviculture funds that were scrapped. Quite frankly, it wasn't until the countervail in 1986, when the responsibility for reforestation was transferred from the Crown to the forest companies....
L. Fox: Who did that?
Hon. D. Miller: The Social Credit government of the day. Right? Because the U.S. forced our hand, quite frankly, we finally established that the companies had the responsibility for reforestation -- which is why you now see a very large reforestation budget under the Ministry of Forests.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: My lesson was not listened to, I guess. The problem in the past was that those funds were subject to politics. To the degree that you can put those funds in a Crown corporation, with a board which hopefully has the same kind of representative mix as the group of people that forged this plan in the first place....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: You won't dare. There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or twenty years from now who will dare to put their hands into that pocket of money. It's taking the silviculture money -- at least that portion we can put into intensive silviculture -- away from the vagaries of politics. We're doing a favour to the forest communities by doing that.
An Hon. Member: Forest companies.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't know what the members opposite have against forest companies. They keep talking about them as though they're something negative in this province. Quite frankly, forest industry export sales account for $10 billion-plus in the B.C. economy. I don't know why the Liberal members have such a negative attitude about forest companies.
This industry has been going through a very difficult and painful transition for at least a decade. Over the decade we've lost about 25,000 jobs in the forest sector. In the main, as we grapple with the difficult issues of land use, we can see that those jobs were lost primarily because of automation and technology. There was never an attempt to come to grips with that. It was the old status quo approach -- which the Liberals are preaching: things are changing, and there's nothing we can do. This is the first time in the history of our province that we have brought government, industry, communities and labour together in partnership and said that it's not good enough to simply say the world is changing. How do all of us participate in that change? Should labour simply be a casualty of change? Should we not do anything in terms of trying to retrain and looking at the growth areas in forestry? What a lot of nonsense is being preached over there!
We now have an opportunity for money to go into intensive silviculture; we have an opportunity for money to go into reclaiming those roads that are ready to slide down the hills on Vancouver Island; we have an opportunity to do some reclamation work in our streams and provide jobs for the young people I see up in our gallery. Instead of the kind of future the Liberals envision, with 20 percent unemployment for young people and them sitting on their hands doing nothing, we have an opportunity to create new, meaningful jobs.
I was speaking the other day with Dean Binkley from UBC, who was talking about expanding the faculty of forestry into machine design, looking at the qualities of wood and markets and doing something to strengthen that growing sector of the forest industry -- the value-added sector.
All we get over there is some vague academic treatise on Crown corporations, which doesn't mean a thing. I was out in real British Columbia last week; I talked to real workers. I went into a group of about 50 or 60 woodworkers, who are concerned about their future. I sat down....
[ Page 10233 ]
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, union people. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that there's nothing wrong with trade unionists in this province. There's nothing wrong with proud forest workers who belong to trade unions. If the member opposite doesn't like that, he should stand up and say what he feels about those people. Do you have a bias against unions, hon. member? Are you opposed to working people coming together and having trade unions to represent their interests? Are you opposed to woodworkers being represented on this forest sector group and forging this kind of plan? Are you opposed to workers standing up and saying that they think this is a good plan because it considers their future?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: This carping criticism about trade unions.... The member for Prince George-Omineca wants to have it both ways.
Finally, as I said, the Premier's summit on the economy said: "Let's get together as sectors; let's forge those kinds of partnerships." Lester Thurow, the noted U.S. economist, says that if North Americans don't wake up and start doing that, our competitors are going to beat our pants off -- and they're doing it. So let's look at those kinds of partnerships. Let's get away from this old polarization, which has been so destructive in this province, and get on with forging these partnerships and these kinds of deals that can put $400 million in a pot of money that can be used for retraining, intensive silviculture, research and development, and to develop the forest sector even more.
I tell you that I am convinced. We once had a Socred minister who described the forest sector as a sunset industry. Under this kind of arrangement and this kind of government, it is a sunrise industry. We'll see growth. Where we might see a decline in some of the traditional jobs, we're going to see growth in others. The partners have finally come together, and they've come up with a plan.
I would really appeal to the members opposite. I have two points. Number one, don't delay this bill, because every day you delay this bill we delay getting on with the job. As I said, I would be very surprised -- in fact, I would be shocked -- if any member opposite wanted to oppose this bill. I would have to go to their riding and start talking to their constituents about why they have been derelict in their duties.
W. Hurd: I listened carefully to the remarks of the previous Minister of Forests, who I believe knows more about the forest industry in this province than anyone on the other side of the House. I'm shocked and saddened that he would adopt and endorse a concept as convoluted and as labour-intensive as this particular concept of a Crown corporation. That's exactly what it is:government-labour-intensive.
I'm glad that the member for Nelson-Creston is here. He chaired a select standing committee of this assembly that travelled British Columbia and talked to small licensees in the small business enterprise sector. I can remember one conversation in Smithers very well, with a small licensee who had a six-year renewable small business licence. He had a small remanufacturing plant that was dependent on that small business timber sale. He came up to us after the meeting and said: "I've got a dream for this timber sale; I'd like to see it for 75 years in duration. I'd like the opportunity for my small family business to manage that small business licence for long-term sustainability. I'd like to make the decisions about silviculture and harvesting plans, under the ministry's direction -- absolutely. I have a dream that I can manage this plot of ground and get the maximum yield off it."
This government doesn't believe in people in this province. They don't believe that that small entrepreneur in Smithers can manage that small plot of ground, because they've set up a Crown corporation with five committees to be stacked with more government employees. Let's talk about what these committees are going to be doing. The minister talks about wonderful projects, such as stream rehabilitation and the recovery of logging roads that need to be reclaimed. Those are laudable objectives. But these committees are going to be promoting forest industry diversification, the further processing of wood supply, increased manufacturing of wood products, and community development and adjustment. This is a massive public sector investment in British Columbia, with all the inefficiencies, pork-barrelling and patronage that that term implies. We in this province are at a watershed, a turning point, in terms of forest management. Everyone else in the world is pursuing a form of security of tenure to manage the forest land base. In this province we have a government that has decided that they can make those investments over the long term because they know best.
I'm appalled and disappointed that the minister doesn't understand the small, medium-sized and large players in this industry. Everybody opposite assumes that a stumpage increase of $500 million to $600 million will fall equally on everybody who currently has a forest licence in British Columbia and that they all have an equal ability to pay. Having travelled with that select standing committee.... That just isn't the case. There are companies out there that are going to struggle because of this kind of massive stumpage increase, and I'd like to point out some of those companies for the members opposite. I can tell you who it will be: the small independent sawmills that have to buy 80 to 100 percent of their logs on the open market. It won't be the big multinational companies on the minister's forest sector strategy advisory group. They are integrated companies. They've got pulp and newsprint. They negotiate with a union. If they have to get that $500 million back, they can carve it out of the back of a union contract, and that's exactly what I think is going to happen.
This is an idea whose time was talked about but never should have come. We are at a point in this province where we need to secure a land base for forestry. We have a government that.... It's like telling the agriculture sector and a farmer: "We expect you to get the same amount of yield off your land every year, but you're going to have to do it with a reduced number of hectares."
This government has tied this bill to everything else that it wants to do. I can recall engaging in a debate with Mr. Jack Munro of the Forest Alliance, who told me that he wasn't sure in retrospect whether a Crown corporation was necessarily the answer or would work. The concerns are legitimate. What happens to the small silviculture industry in this province? It is entrepreneurially-driven, and it bids on contracts based on an ability to supply work. It's going to be replaced by IWA members in harvesting and manufacturing activities who will be expected, I assume, to become tree planters. We should be moving to protect every single manufacturing job in this province, not finding reasons to lay people off.
[ Page 10234 ]
These stumpage increases will not fall equally in the industry. We know that. There are companies that will be able to withstand them better than others. It is predicated on the naive assumption that lumber markets are going to continue to increase in this province, and historically they have been highly cyclical -- they've gone up and down.
I hear it said over and over again that we're seeing the loss of jobs in the forest industry because of mechanization. We hear it everywhere. It occurs to me that this government does not even know where the jobs in the forest industry are being created. For every one direct job, there are two or three other, peripheral jobs. The minister talked about the history of the forest industry in this province. Well, 30 years ago all of the repairs and everything were done at the mill, and logging camps dotted the coast. It was a different industry. As the industry changed and those jobs slowly disappeared, outside contract firms manufactured the chains and fixed the logging equipment -- small entrepreneurial companies that are dependent on this industry.
There are approximately 150 communities in this province that depend on this resource for more than half of their total income, and there are small companies in those towns -- hundreds of them, thousands of them -- that depend on the forest industry for 50 to 70 percent of their total business activity. They don't show up in the government's labour pool, but they're there, and they rely on this industry. I can assure the members opposite that they're there. Many of them were on the lawns of the B.C. Legislative Assembly. They're not the direct employees of large firms but owners of small contracting companies and hotels and motels, people who are concerned and trying to survive the loss of the forest land base. That is the big issue.
The Premier of the province stood out there.... No, he didn't stand out there; he waited until his convention on Saturday -- I stand corrected. He said that not one forestry worker will lose their job in this province as a result of an environmental land use decision. What he meant was the creation of this monolithic Crown corporation to turn proud loggers and manufacturing personnel into Crown corporation workers. That's exactly what he meant.
[4:00]
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the forestry workers of the province are no safer now than they were before this bill was introduced -- no safer than they ever were. Regarding the comments of the member for Delta South, Crown corporations are simply a bad idea because of the way they are managed by this government. They are not accountable. When I look at the kinds of activities this Crown corporation will be involved in, it's not just tree planting and stream rehabilitation but also massive investment of public money in a whole variety of activities. We're going to introduce a major economic player into the economy of British Columbia, as well as a forestry player in the forest industry. That's what this is all about.
I must say that I understand that the members opposite are going to trumpet the agreement that was forged with the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, much like they did with the labour bill. They talked about how consensus was forged with that committee. But I tell you that this industry is not monolithic. It's comprised of more than the IWA and large multinational forest companies. There are many small companies out there that are going to find it difficult to survive as a result of this strategy.
The Liberal opposition cannot support the establishment of a Crown corporation. For the former Minister of Forests to suggest that that was the only way we could secure investment in the forest land base really sells the people of the province short -- people who have dreams about managing this land base on their own. There are many people out there -- companies, individuals, small communities and regional districts -- who are managing the land base, based on a tenure arrangement.... This is a defining bill for the government. They had an opportunity to secure a forest land base in British Columbia and to declare a percentage of the land base as the working forest, which is the real way you secure employment in British Columbia. They had an opportunity to look at the tenure system, which would have invited the kind of private sector investment which is entrepreneur-driven, not some Crown corporation with overhead and lack of accountability, which is the manner in which this government has managed its Crown corporations -- not that kind of investment. But they do not believe in the people of British Columbia. They simply do not trust them to make the kinds of investments that need to be made, and that's why this bill is taking us in the wrong direction.
The former minister talked about why Scandinavian countries get the same yield, or almost the same yield, off their lands as we do in British Columbia. I'll tell you why: they have security. They know that if they plant a tree and tend it, they'll be around to harvest it. It's a simple concept, but this bill is taking us in the opposite direction.
Hon. A. Petter: Privatize the land base.
W. Hurd: The minister talks about privatizing land -- not so. There have been grazing licences in this province for a hundred years. The longest forest licence in British Columbia is 25 years, with a five-year renewable term. It takes 100 years to grow a merchantable, commercial tree in British Columbia. The government is saying with this bill that we are going to make that incremental investment. Never mind the proof from around the world; never mind the proof from a few miles south of the border, where the Weyerhaeuser company is managing lands and getting twice or three times the yields of the public lands in British Columbia.
There are companies and individuals in this province who would make that investment. They'd make it tomorrow if they had some sort of security, but there is none. There's no more incentive now in British Columbia than to meet the minimum level of the licence requirement, and that's what this bill is about. The government is now telling the people of the province: "Don't worry about those incremental investments, because we'll do it and we'll ding you the $500 million; we'll take it over." It's not much wonder that some of the larger companies in this province want to see the government take it over. They can write stumpage off in a variety of ways. As long as the prices keep going up, and they've got pulp, newsprint and other products to rely on, what do they have to worry for? That's why I'm disappointed -- I can say it frankly -- with some of the people in the forest industry in British Columbia who have said for some time that they've felt the need and desire to manage this land base for long-term sustainability.
All the auditor general of the province ever asked for was better monitoring and auditing by the Forests ministry. We have a minister who is presiding over the dismemberment of his ministry. All of a sudden the Minister of Environment will have as much control as the Minister of Forests over what happens with the land base. We've got a Crown corporation now which will be making investments on behalf of the people of the province in forest industry diversification, whatever that means.
This minister has not even defended his own ministry. He has refused to do so. He said that what he is doing is
[ Page 10235 ]
changing 30 years of sympathetic administration. What an insult to the good people in his ministry who've done their job over the years! I have to say that I'm shocked and appalled that we have a minister of the Crown who won't even defend the good people in his own ministry who've done their best over the years.
As this minister well knows, the small business forest enterprise program has been a success story in British Columbia. The ministry, as the minister knows, would like to put more timber up for bid, but they don't have the resources within the ministry to do it -- to plan the roads, the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions and the cutblocks. Yet this minister and the previous minister can back a $400-500 million slush fund for a Crown corporation when his own ministry doesn't even have the resources.
I'm saddened, really, that the government of the day would push this idea, which has been around.... Of course, we know it was first proposed by the Forest Resources Commission in 1990. I must confess that I'm shocked that many of the people who opposed the idea then are prepared to capitulate to it now. I suspect the reason is that they see all these overlapping initiatives on the land base. They see that the government is intent on reducing the area available for harvest, and on pursuing another agenda.
With this bill, the government has claimed that 4,000 people are going to lose their jobs and that 6,000 more are going to be created by Forest Renewal B.C. They're pulling those figures out of thin air. This government doesn't have any idea about the number of people who rely on this industry. They obviously don't know. The Ministry of Finance purportedly has figures about the effects of the annual allowable harvest reduction in the province and how many jobs would be created.... But they're not factoring indirect jobs, just the direct ones. They don't have a clue how many jobs are going to be lost as a result of the measures they're undertaking. They don't know, and yet somehow this forest renewal program, this massive public sector investment, is going to fill the vacuum in this province. How can you possibly say that not one forestry worker in the province is going to lose his or her job when you don't even know how many are going to be affected? That's the reality of the situation we find in British Columbia.
The former Minister of Forests has challenged the opposition to speak against this bill. I accept that challenge, because since this bill was introduced, the opposition has received hundreds of calls from small companies and small entrepreneurs in the silvicultural industry. I talked to somebody at a forest products company in Prince George that has shelved a $50 million capital improvement. They're putting it into stumpage. These members opposite have forgotten that.
Where do you get the money to invest in your plant and equipment when you're pouring it into Forest Renewal B.C.? They don't understand that when the price for product and lumber is up and earnings are high -- which they don't appear to believe corporations or individuals have the right to earn -- you put the money back into your plant and equipment. Profits get reinvested, and they create jobs too. Now that $500 million or $400 million is going into a Crown corporation, and those investments probably won't be made. You invest in plant and equipment based on security of timber. That's the reality in this province. You go to the bank to borrow money for your plant. Whether you're a remanufacturing plant or a large multinational company, the first question they ask you is: "How much timber do you have, and how secure is it?" That's the economic reality. This government may think they can take $500 million -- and an additional $75 million, we read on the weekend -- out of the forest industry without any impact. The reality is that plans for capital improvements will be shelved; there's no doubt about that. This is not the most efficient way to promote long-term forest sustainability. It's government inefficiency, bigger government, more government employees and more government planning.
The minister has suggested that his own ministry isn't up to the task. What makes him think that this organization will be any better? Since he was named a minister of the Crown, he's been saying that we've had a history of sympathetic administrations, and the ministry wasn't doing the job. All of a sudden we're going to set up this Crown corporation in British Columbia, and it's going to be able to do everything the ministry couldn't do: wonderful efficiencies; the long-term commitment that his ministry couldn't make. Shame!
This is a bad piece of legislation. It's a defining bill for the government. It's a bill we suspected was coming to the forest industry in British Columbia. It's an attempt by the government to intercede in a major way, when the rest of the forested nations on this planet are going in the opposite direction. They are trying to use a tenure system to induce the kind of private sector investment in the land base that licensee after licensee, during our travels in the province, told us they wanted the opportunity to do. These are not the large multinational corporations that this government seems fond of picking on, but small licensees, people who wanted to secure their family operation with a long-term commitment from the government to manage a plot of ground. That's all: not ownership, just a change to the licensing system.
[4:15]
The minister challenges the opposition to speak against it. I have no problem with that, because this bill is taking us in the wrong direction. It is taking us down the road to more government control, not less. It is taking us down the road to a reduction or elimination of tenure. I issue this warning to those people in the province who, on sober reflection, will soon learn the truth: when you invite a $400-500 million government investment in the forest land base, it's only a matter of time before the licences and the tenure system are next.
J. Doyle: I'm very proud to stand here today in support of this bill. In the two years since we have been in government, nothing has made me more proud to be a member of this government than this bill. What did past governments do when trees were cut in this province? What did they do with the revenue they got from stumpage? They put it into general revenue. With this act, this government is saying that the increase in the dollars we are going to raise from stumpage fees is going to be put right back into the land. The opposition doesn't quite understand that. I think that the only trip the opposition's Forests critic has made to the interior was with the value-added committee that he sat on -- or when he ran for leader.
The opposition, the government and the people in this province know that thousands of jobs have been lost in the forest industry in past years. In my riding alone, Columbia River-Revelstoke, hundreds of jobs have been lost. Past governments -- and that's who this is all about -- did nothing. They watched those jobs disappear and watched the problems with the land base get worse and worse, but they did nothing.
I'd just like to quote what a couple of people have said since this plan was announced. Peter Bentley, chief executive officer of Canadian Forest Products: "This legislation
[ Page 10236 ]
deserves the support of all British Columbians. This is far too important to let it become a political football." Mike Apsey of COFI: "For the first time ever, a fund is going to be set up that administers reforestation and the protection of our environmental values." Ross Munro, chairman of Share Our Resources, Port Alberni: "We endorse this plan...." Jack Munro of the Forest Alliance: "It's a very positive step toward ensuring that the forest sector will provide economic and social benefits for generations of British Columbians." Vicky Husband, from the environmental movement: "This is a major...step in the right direction. I'm very pleased. The plan recognizes a lot of the things we've been fighting for."
This past weekend I was in my riding, as I was last Wednesday with the ex-Minister of Forests, the member for Prince Rupert. People there are very excited about this plan. We travelled to Revelstoke and Canal Flats, and on the weekend I was at a trades fair in Golden. I handed out many copies of the forest renewal plan, and I had nothing but good reports back from people who had heard about it. They were anxiously looking forward to reading about this very exciting plan which will renew and sustain our communities that depend on the forests. They all know about the concerns that there have been.
What has the opposition critic been saying about this? I think the biggest forest that some of those members over there have seen is the one in Stanley Park. I want to let them know there are many forests east of Hope that they may have never seen. What did the Liberal critic say on the day of the announcement or the day after? He was quoted in the Times-Colonist on April 15 as saying: "I applaud the commitment, under law, to put $400 million a year into the forest land base...." On the same day, that same individual said on CFAX Radio that he rates the plan at two or three on a scale of ten and that many things concern the opposition about the plan. Again on the same day, speaking out of the other side of his mouth....
An Hon. Member: There must be three sides.
J. Doyle: Yes, I'm not sure how many there are.
...the Liberal critic said that it's a good investment for the province. The opposition is not sure where they're at. I say that they don't really understand the interior of our province and the people there who depend on the forest to make a living.
I'd like to speak about a couple of things regarding what this announcement will do for the interior and for the economy of our province in general.
Silviculture. Over half of the investment of the forest renewal plan will be directed toward increasing the land available for planting new trees and toward silviculture research and development.
More jobs from each tree we cut. The plan will increase jobs by making investments to help value-added companies start up and expand. As was mentioned by the Minister of Forests some time ago, $30 million will be given to the value-added sector to increase jobs. So the real tomorrow of our forest base is in getting more jobs out of each tree we cut, as well as in the development of wood manufacturing technologies, products and markets for the forest industry.
Investment in forest worker training. Skills training will be provided through the creation of a forest sector skills council, comprised of workers, industry and government, to coordinate and evaluate existing training and create new training programs. In addition, there will be training in new silviculture and reforestation practices, ensuring aboriginal participation in all the training programs.
Another very important part of this plan is strengthening communities that rely on the forests. The forest renewal plan will maintain and enhance opportunities in communities that rely on the forests. Additional initiatives include funding for economic development, planning, maximizing benefits from government economic development programs and diversification assistance.
Policy changes -- working with large and small companies in the forest industry in future improvement and development of this plan. Our government was elected to change the way we manage our forests. The forest renewal plan is part of that change, and I'm very proud of it. Something mentioned by the opposition critic which I am very proud of in my riding is the community forest that has been set up in Revelstoke. It is the second one in the province, and I'm very proud of it. The community will now have a say over the land base in their back yard.
This act is great news for our province. I would say to the opposition that they must get out more and travel where the people who depend on this industry are located, and also realize that many jobs in the lower mainland depend on it, for this product is shipped all over the world. So I would like to say to our opposition, on behalf of my constituents: do travel out there; get out and see what is going on in the province. If they need any help, I will assist them with travel plans on how to find their way out there. Most of all, I would dare the opposition to hold up this bill, because the people in the interior and the province in general are waiting for legislation like this. So let's get on, get this bill passed and get it into effect.
L. Fox: I am pleased to rise and talk on the philosophies and principles of Bill 32. With respect to the principles contained within the BC Forest Renewal Act, I find myself in a perplexing situation. I support new initiatives in silviculture and forest renewal, but I am looking at an extremely hollow bill. It puts all the power into cabinet and a Crown corporation, and in my view, is going to use a very important initiative for the purposes of political gain.
The minister said that all members of the House should join in this program and endorse it. What makes it extremely difficult is the tone of voice and what was contained in the statement the Premier used in announcing the program. We see similar rhetoric contained in the preamble of the news release issued along with the introduction of the new forest code. In both of these introductions the Premier has consistently condemned all the initiatives over the last 20 years, initiatives in which many innovative ideas were brought forward in terms of reforestation and silviculture. We've seen scientific gains in terms of how we now regenerate our trees. We've seen a whole host of improvements in forest practices throughout the region. Unfortunately, through the rhetoric in this government's announcement, we see all those initiatives, many of them extremely good ones, downplayed for purposes of political gain. That's rather unfortunate, because in my neck of the woods there have been tremendous gains in reforestation and silviculture.
Over the last ten years, we have virtually wiped out all the non-satisfactorily restocked areas that had been generated in the years prior to the 1980s. That has been done with a lot of innovative ideas that have come from industry. They have come from entrepreneurs who have done a very good job in the consulting business in terms of silviculture and reforestation initiatives. The private sector has responded to the challenge it was given in 1987 by the
[ Page 10237 ]
government of the day, that it had to come up with a realistic program. It's responded well to that 1987 legislation.
There's no question about it: we can do better, and there's more work to be done. For those reasons I support this type of initiative. But there are several concerns about this legislation. It seems to me that we have the infrastructure in place right now within the B.C. Forest Service. They've done a terrific job over the last nine years in auditing and in enforcing the laws of British Columbia. In my area we have seen some tremendous gains.
We must remember, however, that when we talk about silviculture and fertilization, we won't be able to do that for the working forests in our area, because we have a stand of trees that have virtually all matured, and we're chasing the bug from one stand to another. When I say chasing the bug, I'm talking about the pine beetle and the spruce bug -- primarily the pine beetle in my constituency. That is virtually wiping out the overmature stand that presently is being logged. Evidence of that came from an announcement by the Forests minister about a month and a half ago, when he announced a new cut in the Chilcotin in the amount of 150,000 cubic metres. That again was bug-kill. If it's not looked after and logged as quickly as possible, we lose that resource and in fact it becomes an extreme hazard. That's one of the issues. If we can enhance silviculture in Prince George-Omineca, it will be primarily in areas that have been planted over the last 20 years. So we're not going to see the fruits of that for some time. However, we must start now, and I have no problem with that.
I do have some concern with the way we've virtually doubled the stumpage on quota wood. In the interior, it's not the integrated sawmills that are the innovators and that provide the jobs. By and large, the small independent mills have been the innovators in the interior. We hear lots of talk in this Legislature about the fact that automation has cost jobs in the logging industry and in the production of wood. That's true. But one of the main reasons for those jobs being lost was high stumpage rates in the late eighties. High stumpage rates caused small independent sawmills to look at automation to cut their production costs so that they could meet the high stumpage rates and come out of it with a margin of profit at the end of the day.
[4:30]
I am concerned when we see an arbitrary figure of $10 a cubic metre being placed on fixed stumpage, because that equates to $50 a thousand, give or take a little. We have seen 2-by-4 studs that would have dropped by about $200 a thousand over the course of the last two months to the vicinity of about $240 a thousand now. Yet we see statements like the one I brought with me from the Prince George Citizen, where the member for Prince George-Mount Robson said that the current high lumber prices are virtually guaranteed. Well, they're not guaranteed. In fact, the market bears no resemblance at all to the cost of production. As we all know, it's a commodity sold on an open market.
What's going to happen? One of my fears is this: if you increase the stumpage rate, and if that increase is something like what I've been told would be $50 a thousand, you have now increased the stumpage rate to around $100 a thousand. Therefore the margin has dropped to $140 from stump to market, and the industry has to work with it.
What's going to happen? I'll tell you one thing. Once again those sawmills are going to look at their cost of production. This initiative could cost more jobs in production facilities around the province. That has to be a concern. History will bear me out. If any members want to look back, they will find that when industry costs went up in terms of stumpage and other fixed costs, they looked at automation to solve that. That cost jobs in the industry. That's one concern that I have.
The other concern I have with this initiative is that 34 percent of the 55 million cubic metres that will be harvested over the next five years will come from northern British Columbia. Under today's silviculture initiatives, which are administered and enforced by the B.C. Forest Service, every company has to put back into their region those dollars that it is obligated to put back. We see with the Crown corporation that only $400 million of the projected $600 million is going to go back into reforestation and silviculture programs; $200 million is going to be used by government for other initiatives, including job training programs, as I understand it. That information has been very difficult to come by. It certainly isn't contained in the legislation.
What we have here is a situation where everybody pays into a central B.C. Crown corporation, and it's redistributed back to the regions. It seems to me that that's an unnecessary step. It seems to me that this could all have been done within the Ministry of Forests, using the same guidelines and legislation that are presently in place. If the intent of Bill 32 truly was silviculture enhancement so we could sustain an annual allowable cut that would help to sustain the jobs that we presently have in the industry, there would be no need for a Crown corporation to be part of the process. It could have easily been handled in the Ministry of Forests through the mechanism that's presently before us.
That leads me to believe that there must be some political reasons to set up this Crown corporation, and it can only mean.... If we look at the recent B.C. 21, one has to wonder whether or not those dollars which have been contributed by people in my constituency -- collected from industry in Prince George-Omineca -- are going to offset and perhaps enhance the opportunities for the member in Nelson-Creston to become elected next term. If that wasn't going to be the case, why would we need a Crown corporation? Why could we not use the Ministry of Forests and the legislation that is presently there? Those are some of the concerns I have with respect to this initiative.
One other concern I have is the fact that I have some difficulty understanding how we can achieve a sustainable forest industry and sustainable production if we do not have a land base which has been dedicated for the purposes of extracting resources. It seems to me that as long as the land base is in question, as long as those kinds of goalposts keep moving, it's not going to be possible to sit down and assess what type of inventory or growth pattern we have in order to create a yield on a sustainable basis. I believe those kinds of concerns are legitimate; and in fact, they have been left unaddressed by this legislation.
The Minister of Forests and the previous Minister of Forests talked about the consultation process that went on through this and about the players who helped develop this renewal plan. I respect the fact that those people were involved in the process. But there was one obvious deletion from that list, and that deletion was anybody representing the silviculture industry which presently exists -- an industry that has been extremely cost-effective. They've done a great job in British Columbia. It's an industry that has created thousands of jobs for British Columbians in all regions of the province and has responded to the need in a very entrepreneurial way.
What do we have now? We're setting up a new structure. The minister suggests it can work alongside that existing industry. People within that industry work extremely hard. All of them work on a contract basis. They produce, and that production is good for the province, good for the woods
[ Page 10238 ]
industry and good for the people of British Columbia because it's extremely cost-effective. I cannot see how you could have that existing industry working on one side of the road under contract, where they work extremely hard, and on the other side of the road have a unionized initiative at union salaries paid at an hourly rate. It just won't work. Therefore I suspect -- and time will bear me out -- that this has one other motive in it, and that is to unionize that sector of workers in British Columbia. If that's the case, I'm extremely concerned. I believe we're going to lose the cost-effectiveness that we've enjoyed over the course of the last ten years. We're going to see that we're going to spend more money but actually do less work.
As I said in the beginning, I support the idea of putting more money into silviculture and reforestation and the idea of job training. Unfortunately, I cannot support the idea of creating a Crown corporation -- a larger government structure -- just to filter the money through in order to meet the political bias of this government. That's the concern that I, the industry and those involved in the silviculture industry have with this particular legislation.
C. Evans: It gives me great pleasure -- I think it's an honour -- to work in this Legislative Assembly at a time when we are able to bring in Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I can't think of any initiative of this government that more perfectly reflects the desires of people in my region over the last two decades.
I've been sitting in this room listening to the comments of the Reform Party and Liberal Party Forests critics on the subject of this bill. I find their positions utterly out of touch with the longstanding political position of people from rural British Columbia all over this province and utterly out of touch with the objectives of this piece of legislation. It gives me terrific pleasure that the spokespeople for these two parties want to stand in this Legislature and oppose this piece of legislation, because it gives me a chance to articulate a bit of the difference between who the government is and represents and who these opposition parties are and might represent.
I'd like to start by suggesting that what happened in this building two weeks ago was a bit of a miracle. I don't think any of us of any political persuasion, or anyone watching or reporting on events here, can point to another event like it in the history of any government ever in British Columbia -- ever, hon. Speaker and members opposite. I'm not talking about the essence of the legislation. I'm talking about a moment when the Premier stands up and announces he's going to double the taxes on a sector of our economy; then he's followed to the microphone by spokespeople in the very industry that's going to be taxed. And what do they say? Do they say: "Woe is me. Don't tax us. You'll destroy my industry"? They say: "Thank God. It's about time. We've wanted it to be this way for decades."
Then who came to the microphone? Listen up, Forests critic. Act 3 in the miracle: it was a representative of the forest workers' union, the folks who this very year are going into bargaining to cut themselves a piece of the company's profits -- as they should. And what did that gentleman say? Did he say: "Don't raise the taxes. That's our workers' money. We need to bargain for those profits"? No. He said: "It's about time. Thank God. You should have done it years ago."
Following those folks came a whole series of other spokespeople in this building -- and a spokesperson for first nations. You might have expected the first nations spokesperson to say: "It's not your resource to tax, Mr. Premier." Is that what he said? No. He said: "It's about time. You should have done it years ago. It's the first time we were ever a participant in the negotiations leading to a major event in government policy."
And then act 5: in comes the spokesperson for the Sierra Club. This person, I think understandably, has been a bit at odds with my position and the government position over the last 24 to 30 months. I personally participated in a debate with this individual, because intellectually, and maybe even viscerally, we have some differences. Walking freely of her own accord, without coercion, she walked before the microphone. And did she say: "Those trees aren't yours to cut down; those trees belong in parks. The government has got it wrong again"? No. She said: "It's about time. We've been asking for this for years. This is step one by this government, which we can support in public before this microphone and these television cameras." So who is missing in the miracle play?
[4:45]
The people on the street think we fight a lot in here; they think we argue. They think the essence of politics is struggle. They are a bit embarrassed by the partisan nature of politics in British Columbia. They are sick of the fight between the forest workers, the forest companies, the environmental community and government. The people of British Columbia watched that miracle on their television screens, and they all said: "It's about time. Why didn't it happen years ago? Maybe now we can put away the endless barricades, endless rhetoric and struggles over land in British Columbia."
But not everybody was there. Unlike first nations, environmental groups, logging companies and workers, the opposition wasn't there. I was standing next to one of those members when the microphone came their way, and he said: "I'll give it a two or a three on a scale of ten. It's meaningless." I just stood here in the Legislature and heard the Reform Party critic say: "Aw, the Forest Service could have done it better. Why don't we leave it with the Forest Service?" I sat here a few minutes ago and listened to the Liberal Party critic for Forests, who actually lives probably 300 miles from the nearest forest, and he said: "We should privatize the land. That way we'd care for it better."
I want this moment to be part of the history of British Columbia. I want everybody to remember that today we started forward on a brand-new tack. I want to say to the Reform Party that I understand why they don't like it if the government can bring all the players together at once, inside this building, in agreement, because they haven't got a chance of being elected unless the land use war is raging out there on the street. If we can bring the people into agreement, then the folks who are dependent upon struggle between workers, native people and environmentalists, and who need the blockades and demonstrations to have a chance at getting elected, are toast.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I understand why the Liberal Party critic would oppose everybody getting together and seeing it one way. I would suggest that his party has one solution to forestry, an urban solution to forestry, a solution that reflects the fact that they don't have a single member who lives anywhere near a forest. What's that solution? They say: "Let's do it like Europe; let's give the forest to the companies; let's create tenure forever."
That's not the way British Columbia works. All of the history of British Columbia.... We said the trees were the people's resource, and the people would decide how to use those trees in this building: democracy, struggle and
[ Page 10239 ]
conversation. They will be the people's resource. We will manage them according to the mores of the time, we will sell them according to the economic needs of the time, and we will invest that money in the people's need. The announcement of Bill 32 two weeks ago changes forever the structure of the way we market and manage those trees.
The way democracy has always worked in this building is that the people outside -- across the ocean, in the north, in the interior, up-Island -- catch salmon, dig ore, dig coal and log trees. They create wealth with the wealth of the land, the wealth nature gave us. They create wealth out of the dirt, the sea, the springs and the rivers in this province. Then democracy changes the wealth of wood into money through taxation. Then they walk through these doors and debate what to do with the currency -- not of wood, salmon, coal or ore, but of money. How do they spend it? Understandably, because we have a complex society to manage, they spend 70 or 75 percent of it on three ministries. They spend it -- and I believe in it -- on health, education and social services because these are the needs of people. Where does the money get spent? Everybody knows if you turn wood, salmon and ore into money, and you spend the money on the people, the money will be spent where the people live.
So democracy here has always served the parliamentary system to transfer the wealth from dirt and water into money and spend it on people -- and strip-mine the future of the rural and resource areas of this province. What do they do with that money? Some of the things they do are wonderful: they educate our children; they keep us well.
But what they also do in this building is get themselves re-elected. Every government in the history of this province has spent the people's and the land's wealth to buy back power to the people who work here. Bill 32 said that that doesn't work anymore. Members of all parties, if they'd had this bill in Newfoundland 20 years ago there would be no catastrophe in that province today.
What this bill does is that it admits.... I'm so proud of members of all parties at this time, when three-quarters of us are elected by urban constituencies -- because that's who, as a people, we are in British Columbia. Collectively, these people are looking at the future and saying: "If we spend it as we spent it in the past, it's barren." They're walking through these doors and saying: "Let's pass a law that says half the wealth that comes from wood will go back to dirt to grow more wood." Half the wealth that comes from Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Nelson, Creston and Prince George will go back to those communities to support the people who did the work that produced the wealth. It says that half the wealth that comes from the use of wood will go back into promoting value-added manufacturing in the very industry that made the money. We can't spend it at UBC, and we can't spend it in the hospitals and grade schools and to pave the roads of the city, because we're going to make a law that says society is dependent upon the earth's ability to feed us, so we have to feed the earth.
I am so proud of all of you. I want to say to the Forests critic from the Reform Party that of course the Forest Service could do it. In a perfect world, we don't need a Crown corporation. We don't need a 15-person board of directors to manage the wealth that comes from the forest -- except it isn't just men and women in the Forest Service who spend that money. In fact, they don't get to touch it until it passes through this room, and historically that meant the people on the land never got it. It passes through here and it's turned into something else. It is turned into somebody's electoral platform. This law is saying that as good as we are at our job, as hard as we try to have integrity and honesty and look to the future, politics gets in the way of feeding the land -- simple economies of scale, demographics and numbers. The numbers of people in the cities mean that it passes through here and never gets back to the Forest Service.
The only way to ensure that someday my daughter or son can stand here and have this job with the same kind of wealth we have today -- and not be managing the disaster that is Newfoundland -- is to say that starting in 1994 some politicians are going to give up power. Devolve power. Do what every poli sci professor on this continent says we don't have the guts to do and teaches their students we don't know how to do: take power out of this place. People who have spent their lives gathering it unto them are now going to pass it right outside to people who are appointed and whose jobs are dependent on feeding the land.
And it goes farther. I've been listening for a couple of years to members opposite saying: "Why don't the Crown corporations report back to committee? Why can't all parties examine the annual reports of the Crown corporations?" Previously it was up to the government whether the Crown corporations report back to this Legislature. Bill 32 says that the Select Standing Committee on Forests will meet every year in future; not at the will of the government, but by law for every year in the future. Not the government party, not one individual, not a cabinet minister, but an all-party committee. And what will they examine? The law says that they will examine the business plan of the forest renewal association.
God forbid that the folks who work over there should ever work over here, but I am guaranteed that if I am ever over there, I get to sit on the committee that examines what they do with it. And the people out there who are denied the knowledge -- the workings of the organizations and organisms and corporations that report back to this building -- will get to read it in public forever. There can be no more theft from the land in British Columbia behind closed doors.
In listening this afternoon, I heard the critics from both opposition parties attempt to say, through the cameras to the people of B.C. and the press, that somehow the doubling of stumpage was going to hurt the small companies in the forest industry in British Columbia. They tried to say that the idea of paying higher taxes was an idea of big corporations. Number one, we are all grownups, and no grownup in this province or anywhere in this country thinks that the idea of paying taxes originated with the corporate sector. Number two, for the benefit of the members opposite -- and yourself, hon. Speaker, and anyone interested -- I want to give a short course on how stumpage affects the fortunes of the small and the independent sector in British Columbia.
Firstly, without mentioning his name, I would like to say that I had the good fortune four days ago of spending an hour in the company of a gentleman who runs a logging company in my constituency. There's a sign outside that logging company which says: "Take care of the land, and the land will take care of you." This guy, who runs this mill, is my friend. And when we told the people in the meeting what the forest renewal plan was going to do in terms of stumpage, my friend -- understandably enough -- kept his mouth shut. Then we walked down the street, away from the madding crowd and the public eye, and my friend said to me: "My only bitch is that you should have done it a year ago."
[5:00]
Now why is that? If the little logging company, which the critic from the Reform Party is so interested in defending, says to me, "My only bitch is that you should have done it a year ago," what is it that we don't understand about stumpage? Well, here it is. I'll try to make it real simple. I'll
[ Page 10240 ]
try to tell you, in fact, in the words of the people that we on the standing committee -- including the two opposition members in this room who were present -- heard in town after town, from Prince George to Smithers to Vancouver Island to Penticton. We heard the small sector say: "You know, Corky, it isn't fair. We go to buy wood, and we have to buy it through the small business program, which means it has a base bid of whatever stumpage is and then a bonus bid of whatever anybody will pay. And when we get there, we're not bidding against other little people like ourselves; we're bidding against some companies with quotas."
What does that mean? It means the companies get their wood for $13 a cubic metre from the Crown, because that's average stumpage. So if they get 80 percent of their wood at $13 a cubic metre, then it's understandable that they can pay an astronomical price for 20 percent, which increases the capacity of their mill and brings the price of that wood beyond the ability of the independent sector to even bid.
We have the laughable -- I think members opposite know it's laughable; I think if you had this job you'd try as hard as we are trying, to change it -- situation where stumpage wood, up until a week ago, was going for $13 a cubic metre, and small business wood was going for $70 a cubic metre. And we claimed to have a system in which small business could survive. Horse nonsense! We had a monopoly capital system that drove the small sector right out of business in the last 15 years in this province, while the big companies ate them one after the other like a fat person and doughnuts.
What happened last week? We said that we're going to double the stumpage. Whose, hon. Speaker? The people that were paying $70 a cubic metre, or the people that were paying $13 dollars a cubic metre? Come on, answer up! Heckle! Which sector got their stumpage doubled? Was it the sector that's been defended today by the Forests critic of the Liberal Party, saying that somehow we would hurt them? Everybody in this room and everybody listening knows that's nonsense. We doubled stumpage on the people who were getting the wood at the basement price, in order to defend the interests of the people who have to buy their wood on the open market.
Are we finished? Is this some kind of panacea, some defining moment, some window on this government's future? I don't think so. It's just step by step. It's just the next step. First we said we'd make the annual allowable cut honest; then we said we'd come up with a forest sector strategy. You've seen both of those promises come true. Next we said we'd use the consensus process and CORE to resolve land use plans, and we would come right back to this room with the answer to that question. Next we said that there has been enough logging without any rules, and that if we ran the highways the way we run the forests, people would be dead in the slaughter that could occur because of the absence of control. So just like we need laws to say which side of the road to drive on, we need a forest practices code to say how to go to work on the people's land. We'll take that step too.
Are we going to be done then? Are we going to be ready to run for office then? I don't think so. We're not done by half. We've got to get on to the woodlot sector; we've got to get on to the value-added sector. We have ignored this industry, the dirt, the people and the workers in the communities for so many decades that if we have this job for 15 years, we won't be finished. We're not going to make those changes with the kind of radical, haywire, politically-driven rhetorical change I've been hearing in this place. We're going to make them step by thought-out step. Just like the CORE process and the miracle that happened downstairs two weeks ago, we are going to bring those people together at every step of the way and talk about it until they are exhausted with talking. They'll put their names on the bottom line, and we'll show the people of British Columbia that we can make changes by agreement. In doing so, we're going to bury the election chances of the urban opposition and the rural opposition, whose fortunes are one and each dependent upon the company's fortunes or the war in the forest -- neither of which we believe in, represent or work to enhance. We believe in the opportunities for all those people out there.
I personally came to this building in 1973 -- the first time I'd ever been in it. I came here with a guy who had never even been on an airplane before. We came upstairs and asked the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Forests at that time, Mr. King and Mr. Williams, to talk to us about the principle that stumpage should be captive, away from general revenue, and spent back in the region where it came from. We heard at that time that the people of British Columbia would never accept such a principle, and that resources have to be spent for the greatest good of the greatest number, which meant general revenue.
When that government fell, I came back during the government of Bill Bennett, and I said: "I'd like to talk to you about the principle that stumpage should be held captive, away from general revenue, so that money that comes from dirt can go back to dirt." I'm sorry to say I didn't even get into the room that time. Every time since, with the exception of the administration of Bill Vander Zalm -- when I was so busy on the street opposing it that I didn't have time to come and ask for a meeting -- this member, as a logger, tried to put forward the argument that wealth that comes from dirt should go back to dirt. On this day I'm so proud to be part of a group of people from all parties -- including you guys -- who have the guts to do this deed and change the accounting procedures of capitalism in western democracies forevermore.
D. Mitchell: Like the member for Nelson-Creston, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act.
During his remarks the member for Nelson-Creston referred to the prospect that he might one day serve on the opposition side of this House, and he wondered what he would do if he were to do that. It raises an interesting prospect. Can members of this House imagine the member for Nelson-Creston serving on the opposition side of this House? What a great opposition member he would make. Would he add life to the opposition side? He certainly would. I can only hope one thing: should that day ever come, I hope he would be prepared to do what this member of the opposition is going to do today, which is to rise to speak in support of a government bill.
It's not easy for an opposition member to find opportunities to support the government. I've been chided before by members, like the member for Vancouver-Fraserview and others, to vote with the government from time to time to demonstrate my independence. But in this case I can say that the bill presented by the Minister of Forests is one opportunity for a member on the opposition side to support this government's initiative and accomplishment, to support the consultation that is taking place, and to support the consensus that has been achieved on an issue affecting the most important industry in British Columbia. It's truly an incredible accomplishment.
I'd like to begin by commending the new Minister of Forests and his predecessor for their attempt to meet the challenges of the future, which is what they refer to in the
[ Page 10241 ]
document that accompanies this bill. The goals that the minister refers to in his document are very simple. They include: "sustaining our forests for future generations; creating more value and jobs from the wood we cut; protecting environmental and other values in our forests; meeting the demands of changing international markets; fostering cooperation and partnerships instead of conflict and confrontation." It's beyond me how any member of this assembly could oppose those goals.
But we need to take a further look at the legislation. I've decided that I can certainly support this bill in principle for a variety of reasons, which I'll explain. That's not to say that I don't have concerns. Any member who has taken the time to read Bill 32 carefully and to reflect on the impact that it's going to have on our province's number one industry will have a few concerns that surely need to be raised in this kind of debate and need to be raised in more detail when we get to committee stage. I do have some concerns, and I will raise them.
I have worked for a number of years in the forest industry in our province, and as someone who has had that opportunity, I can say that there is a definite need to put more back into the resource. There is a need to renew the forests, and anyone who has worked at any level in the industry has to acknowledge that. This bill seeks to raise the level of economic rent that the industry pays for access to that resource, and it returns that increase directly to the resource and to resource-based communities. That is something that most observers and participants in the industry have recognized for a long time. This is an idea whose time has come.
An Hon. Member: Like socialism.
D. Mitchell: I really would hope that the debate on this bill would transcend any kind of partisanship that would be reflected in this House. I would really hope that the debate on this kind of legislative initiative would go beyond the normal party politics that we see manifested in this Legislative Assembly from time to time, because there really isn't room for that kind of partisanship when it comes to the renewal of our forest base.
I also want to note for the record that I represent a constituency that is very much reliant on the forest industry. Communities such as Squamish and Pemberton are forest industry towns that are going through difficult times right now; they are going through a transition.
Before this bill came to the House, I had the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Forests. I would just note that he has made a commitment to me that the funds that will emanate from this forest renewal plan, which will be generated from the increased stumpage to be paid by the industry, will be going back directly into forestry-based communities, such as Squamish and Pemberton and many other communities. That commitment is certainly explicit in the bill. But this is more than that; it's a personal commitment the minister has made. He has put his reputation on the line, and I think we can hold him to that. I expect the people of towns like Squamish and Pemberton to hold the minister and the government to that commitment. It's not going to be an easy one, because this is a departure from past practice. But through the legislative force of Bill 32, I think we can take some confidence that forest renewal is being approached in a different way than we have seen heretofore.
It would be easy to oppose Bill 32 by taking a look at it and trying to tear it apart and whipping ourselves up into a frenzy, as opposition parties generally try to do when governments bring forward initiatives. Certainly I have some concerns, and I will refer to them. But I think it's wrong for members on the opposition side of this House to oppose, simply for the sake of opposition, an initiative that is the product of consensus throughout the industry. It's very rare in the life of a legislature for members of the opposition and the government to put down their partisanship for a second and just look at an initiative for its real worth. I was disappointed in the comments of my friend the member for Surrey-White Rock earlier in this debate. I was equally disappointed in the comments of the member for Delta South. It was not evident to me that they had actually read the bill and thought about its consequences. It was not evident to me that they had spoken with people in the forest industry who have asked legislators to support this initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, I have spoken with my constituents over the last two weeks since this initiative has come forward. My constituents, the Soo Coalition, the forest industry communities in Squamish and Pemberton, even some of the representatives of corporate forest industry offices in West Vancouver, have all asked me to support this bill. So if there is one reason, first and foremost, why I feel obliged to, it's because my constituents have asked me to. I think consultation with constituents on this kind of initiative is extremely important -- in fact, it's vital -- before any member seeks to vote or express an opinion in this Legislature.
[5:15]
I've indicated that I have some concerns, and yes, I do. The forest renewal plan is not perfect, and it will not work by itself. Not one of my concerns is large enough for me to oppose this bill, but they are concerns that need to be flagged. They are concerns that the minister needs to address, and I am sure they will be canvassed in detail when we get to committee stage.
One of them deals with the land base. Is the land base that our forest industry operates on secure? If it's not, if there is no security of tenure, if the land base continues to shrink as a result of arbitrary decisions that may be made from time to time, then forest renewal becomes meaningless. So we have to find out what the working forest in British Columbia is, how much of it is to be preserved, and whether forest renewal is going to renew forests that the industry will not have access to in the future, well into the next century. When it comes to land use decisions, we have to understand the CORE process, where it's going, and whether it has been stalled indefinitely because of the perhaps ill-fated Vancouver Island land use plan. We don't know, because the government hasn't responded to that yet. We need to know more about the protected areas strategy, and we need to know what the annual allowable cut for the industry is going to be. We need to know these other important pieces of the puzzle before we know that the forest renewal plan will indeed work as intended.
We also have to understand the Forest Practices Code. I know that later on in this session we're going to be receiving legislation to establish a Forest Practices Code. We don't understand what the cost of that code is going to be. If the cost of that code is significant when we add it on to the cost of this forest renewal plan, I worry about that. The total cost structure of the industry is changing radically, and we have to know how those costs are going to be borne by large and small operators alike. So the cost of this forest renewal program itself must be addressed. The rationale for increasing the stumpage to the levels this plan proposes is interesting, because it presupposes that we've had a
[ Page 10242 ]
structural change in the value of our wood products. We don't know if that's true.
There's a debate among forest economists as to whether what we've seen is a cyclical change or indeed a structural change. The member for Prince George-Omineca, in his contribution to this debate, made some references to the fact that prices for 2-by-4 lumber have come down almost $100 per thousand board feet just in the last few months. We don't know if we're simply seeing cyclical changes or whether there indeed has been a structural change due to shortages of supply in softwood fibre.
But this plan has a safety valve for the government built into it. The minister in his remarks has referred to the fact that if indeed it's not a structural change, then the cost can come down. If in fact the price of lumber comes down, then do we really know that over the next five years we're going to be seeing $2 billion put back into the resource? How can we guarantee that? Isn't that something akin to the sympathetic administration associated with previous regimes?
We need to understand that the commitment is there, that the money will be spent on forest renewal and that there will not be this kind of playing around with figures that we've seen in years gone by, not only in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions as well. I hope the minister might address some of those concerns when he closes debate on second reading or at least when we get into committee stage. That's a concern we must address.
The other major concern listed by the members of the official opposition and other members is about the establishment of a Crown corporation. I share that concern. It's not enough of a concern for me to vote against this bill. But there must be some concern about the accountability of Crown corporations and whether that's the way to go. It's not a new idea. The idea of establishing a Crown corporation for this purpose has been kicking around in the Ministry of Forests for a decade or more. That idea has been put forward by many people in the Forests ministry for quite some time. Today, with this bill we're actually seeing that Crown corporation established. It's been predicted for a long time. We need to know that that Crown corporation will be accountable to this Legislature -- more accountable than all other Crown corporations in this province. I know that some members of the opposition have put that forward as the main reason to oppose this bill.
If we build in the right safeguards and get commitments from this government that the Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C., will indeed be accountable to this Legislature -- that the board is not simply filled with partisan patronage appointments, but does represent a broad cross-section of the industry as well as government, community groups and local governments -- then I think we should try to give it a chance. We British Columbians at some point have to be prepared to give this kind of program a chance to succeed, even though we have this concern.
I'd like to raise another concern with respect to reported deal-making that has gone into the forest renewal plan. There have been reports in the news media that this plan itself is the result of backroom deals at the highest level with corporations, the forest industry and other groups. If that's the case, then in all seriousness I think we really have to flag this as not acceptable. It's not acceptable to be doing the people's business with the people's largest resource through backroom or behind-the-scenes deals. We in British Columbia in 1994 don't any longer allow our politics to be done that way, and we shouldn't allow the public's business to be done that way, either. One of the suggestions coming forward from one of the reports is that there might be a trade-off dealing with tenure in the future -- that that might be part of the backroom deal. I think we need a commitment from the minister that there won't be backroom deals or deal-making behind closed doors, and that any consultation subsequent to the passage of this legislation will be up front, in full public view.
The other issue dealing with Crown corporations is the prospect of political interference. Forest Renewal B.C., it says right in the legislation, "must comply with any general or special direction" from cabinet. There, then, is the possibility for any cabinet -- whether of this or any future government -- to interfere with or direct moneys from this Crown corporation for specific purposes. That raises the prospect of political interference. I wonder whether the minister might be willing to entertain amendments to this section of the bill, when we get to committee stage, to eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of that kind of political interference.
One other concern has to be raised. I know the bill tries to address this, but I don't know if it's satisfactory. It's the issue of the need for regional equity. If there's one reality facing the forest industry in British Columbia, it's trying to communicate to all British Columbians that the forest industry is not monolithic and that the forest resource is not the same throughout the province. It's not simply the difference between the coast and the interior; it's much more complex than that. We have to appreciate the regional nature of the B.C. forest economy and understand that blanket policies will not work for the province as a whole.
This bill certainly speaks to the need for regional equity. But what we need to have is an assurance that when increased stumpage from one region is paid by the industry and operators in that region, the moneys will come back to that region where the timber is harvested to renew the resource of that region. We need to have an assurance that it won't simply go to Victoria and be directed to some other part of the province for political purposes. I know this is going to be a challenge, because not all parts of the province generate the same quality of resource. Not all regions of the province generate the same fibre or species that will generate the same revenues to the public purse. There's a section of the act that we'll deal with in some detail in committee. There has to be some recognition, when forests are harvested with increased stumpage in the Soo timber supply area, for instance, that that stumpage will come back to renewing the resource there so that people won't have to leave communities like Squamish or Pemberton to go work elsewhere. They'll be able to continue to work, and their families and subsequent generations will be able to continue to work in that region where the timber was initially harvested.
Those are some of the concerns that I'd like to flag. The member for Prince George-Omineca raised one other good one, which is the silviculture industry. That's a valid one. I hope the minister is going to be able to address that concern. Yes, we want to see more employment. This bill promises that, or it certainly raises the prospect of more employment in the industry. But we already have an existing silviculture industry in our province, and one of the issues flagged by many silviculture contractors is that they don't want to be replaced by a bunch of new workers who are going to be trained to simply take over their jobs. That issue needs to be addressed as well, and it certainly needs to be added to the list of concerns that we hope the minister will address and that we know we will be discussing at committee stage.
But the benefits of the forest renewal plan, in my estimation, appear to outweigh any of these concerns. The
[ Page 10243 ]
benefits include employment and significant dollars for training of forest workers; they include the benefit of providing healthier forest-based communities through diversified and strengthened economies. The benefits also include the whole prospect of value-added manufacturing, which can't be done by government; it must be done by industry itself. If the forest renewal plan can do anything to encourage the extraction of higher value than we have seen in recent years from the forest resource through value-added manufacturing -- which has been started by many small operators, unfortunately through a small business program that is far too easily manipulated by the large companies in our province -- I can support those goals, and I think all members of this Legislature should be able to support those goals. But we should also be prepared to go further. The forest renewal plan represents one important piece of the puzzle when we are trying to address the complex issue of the resource industries in our province, particularly the forest resource and how we are going to renew that resource, and how the economic rent that is paid for the use of that resource will go toward regeneration of the most valuable resource in our province. But we have to be prepared to go beyond this. In order to do that, not only are we looking with interest at the land use strategy of this government -- the Forest Practices Code and other important initiatives that this government has launched -- but we need to be prepared to take one step further, and maybe it's a step back. We need to take a look at the tenure question itself. Who should have the right to harvest our trees? Who in British Columbia should have the right to have access to the publicly owned forest resource for harvesting that resource?
We know what the answer has been in the past, and some significant studies have been done during the course of this last quarter-century or so. We had the Sloan commission reports in the 1950s, which were very important for establishing the concept of sustained yield and establishing the kind of forest tenure that we know today. In 1976 we had the Pearse commission report by noted expert Peter Pearse, which really brought in a new forest act in British Columbia and brought in the concept of the multiple forms of tenure that are held today. It might be time to address tenure again, because every generation in British Columbia has dealt with this issue and has added to the evolution of the concept of tenure in the province.
Just prior to this government coming to office there was a significant review in the Forest Resources Commission report. That report made some significant recommendations. Most of those recommendations have not yet been addressed by the current government. I wonder whether the Minister of Forests might be willing to consider the possibility of initiating a major public review of tenure in our province, along the lines of a royal commission, so that this forest renewal plan can work well into the next century and beyond. Whether it should be a royal commission or not, I don't know. It certainly could use the Peel commission report as a basis for study or public discussion. We need to have someone take a look at this while all this activity is taking place, while the forest renewal plan is being implemented and while all the other important initiatives -- the land use plan for the province and the Forest Practices Code -- are being looked at. We urge the government to move forward with those initiatives expeditiously.
While that is happening, someone should be able to take a step back from the trees and look at the forests, so to speak, and take a look at the most important issue that will affect the harvesting of that resource in the next century: tenure. My experience in the forest industry tells me that tenure needs to be looked at, because tenure as it is held today certainly continues to accelerate the forces of corporate concentration. Large companies get larger. The smaller operators, who tend to be the most innovative and creative and are the ones who are really adding value to the resource, have tended to be manipulated by most of the larger operators. I can say that from personal experience. We need to look at tenure as well.
In supporting the forest renewal plan, I think we need to ask some of those important questions. For whom is the forest resource being renewed? Who in the next century will have the right to harvest timber? Will communities or municipalities have the right to have their own timber, either in area form or volume form? Will individuals have the right to hold the rights to timber in a way that is similar or analogous to the ownership that is held in some Scandinavian countries? The forestry resource there has been renewed, not into a second harvest but into a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth and sometimes even a seventh harvest -- seventh growth. We're talking about second growth here. We're babes in the woods in comparison with some of our international competitors. Surely the old models of tenure need to be reviewed. Incentives for constant improvement in tenure can be established.
[5:30]
I'd like to conclude by saying that I support the principle of Bill 32. I have some concerns about its implementation. I know that the minister is going to have to defend those in committee stage, and I look forward to that. I hope that the forest renewal plan will lead to a time when British Columbia is recognized internationally as the centre of, and the model for, forest management and expertise in the world. We have one of the largest forest bases in the world. We should be regarded as the Mecca of forestry. We are not today. We have some outstanding examples of forestry in our province, but we should be held up for the world to look at and to say that British Columbia really sets the standard for forest management as well as for value-added manufacturing. If the forest renewal plan can get us a ways toward that goal, where we can establish that reputation, then I think the plan deserves the support of every member of this House.
H. Giesbrecht: It's a pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate and to follow the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I see that he has had a temporary lapse of sanity, although I suspect that in the coming days we may find disagreement on a number of issues. I'm pleased to see that on Bill 32 we agree at least somewhat. I want to make the observation that he is the first opposition member who has actually had the courage to say how he's going to vote on this bill. The official opposition and the members of the Socred Party -- now the Reform Party -- have basically criticized the bill but haven't said how they are going to vote, whether they are going to be opposed to it or not.
I had the pleasure last week of attending some public meetings in my constituency. For that reason I take considerable comfort and pleasure in standing up and saying that I support Bill 32. I want to go into a bit of background, because I represent a constituency which was largely built on the forest industry, and it's still pretty much the same. It ranges in that area on the map where the forest industry makes up anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of the local economy. Even after Alcan came to Kitimat in the fifties, the forest industry has still been the mainstay of the economy in my constituency.
Back in the early eighties when the recession hit -- and I commented on that a few days ago -- there were some pretty
[ Page 10244 ]
devastating results. Mills laid off entire shifts, and the lumber markets were down. We had soup kitchens in Terrace, and it was pretty difficult at times. People in my constituency are very sensitive to those kinds of changes. I still remember coming down to the lower mainland, and everything seemed to be thriving. I was visiting people, and they were complaining about flowers not being planted in the median of Highway 401. Up there we were having to contend with the worst of the recession. So we're quite sensitive to anything that has to do with the forest industry.
In the village of Kitwanga, a mill has been shut down for almost three years because of a lack of wood supply. It's not only Skeena that is largely dependent on the woods industry, but it's primarily the rural, northern and interior areas of the province. The forest sector, as has been stated, has about 94,000 direct jobs related to it, and there are another 140,000 spinoff jobs, so it's a major job provider. It contributes about $10 billion to B.C.'s gross domestic product. Most of this is from Vancouver Island, the interior and the north.
All has not been well in the forest industry. The irony, of course, is that most people have been talking about this coming down the pike at them for many years. I can still recall a debate 15 years ago in the meetings of the Kitimat-Stikine regional district about the inevitable shortage of wood supply. But I'm not going to go back that far. I want to remind people here that we once had a Forests minister, back in August 1986, who was affectionately referred to as Wolfman Jack, and he set up an internal Forests ministry review of forest management practices.
Interjection.
H. Giesbrecht: True, they fired him, but in 1987 they made a report and recommended some fairly basic things. They recommended more stringent auditing, increased supervision of the industry, and not giving the industry any more authority in forest management or any more involvement in setting stumpage fees. It also criticized Forests ministry practices and the political meddling that took place. To paraphrase, it said that there were too many harvesters with too many claims on wood leaving too much waste.
Well, that Forests minister, as was said, got fired. They brought in a new one -- who happens to have been my predecessor -- and he appointed T.M. Thomson and Associates to investigate the Queen Charlotte operations. They found wanton waste up there. One of Thomson's recommendations was that operators who violate the Forest Act should be highly penalized. A second one was that the Forest Service needed more trained personnel. The minister of the day rejected both of those recommendations. Then after him came the Peel commission, and it confirmed many of those early findings.
The point, of course, is that nothing happened. Nothing was ever done. When the previous Forests minister, Claude Richmond, came up next, he gave us the five-year plan. You remember the five-year plan that was supposed to be a $1.4 billion expenditure in five years to rejuvenate the forest industry. The problem, of course, was that there was only $100 million of new money involved in it each year, it was all from taxpayers -- those people who are ranting about taxes might take note -- and it was only to cover old NSR lands before 1987. It was all necessary because the past government didn't collect enough stumpage fees. So Reform-Social Credit shouldn't be smug about their record. Report after report said again and again that there were too many harvesters with too many claims leaving too much waste. They were saying that forests were forever -- not! The previous government's solution was to cut more and avoid looking at the inevitable falldown, the inevitable non-sustainability of the forest industry.
It was within this reality that the BC Forest Renewal Act was introduced. You can't deny the past. If we don't change the way we manage our forests, the harvest could decline by 15 to 30 percent over the next 50 years. Ten thousand jobs could be lost in the next 15 to 20 years alone, and that's not counting the indirect or spinoff jobs. There would be a loss of revenue to the province, and there would be more confrontation as the intensity around land use conflicts increased. Forest businesses would shut down, and rural areas, the north and the interior would suffer the effects.
The time to act was years ago. I'm pleased to stand here and say that this New Democratic government has the courage to act in an unprecedented way, by forging a partnership with communities, business, environmentalists, first nations and the government.
For years people, including my constituents, have been saying things like: "We're cutting too much too fast; we're not replanting enough; we're not tending the harvest; we're not doing enough silviculture; we're not putting back the nutrients that we take out; we don't get enough jobs, remanufacturing or value-added, for the wood we cut." Finally there's an action plan, and something's going to be done.
We already have the Forest Practices Code that's been talked about, and that will deal with the manner in which we harvest. We now have the forest renewal plan, which, if you want a simple version, is that we'll take $2 billion over the next five years -- that's $2 billion of additional stumpage, so it's not tax money -- and put it back into silviculture, repairing and protecting the forest environment, value-adding initiatives, research and development, forest worker training, first nations participation in the forest economy and strengthening forest resource communities. It's done by a board of directors representing forest sector stakeholders -- business, labour, the IWA, first nations and environmentalists -- so it can't be claimed or clawed back in future years just because there's an election call. That's what always used to happen in the past.
I'm excited about the plan because of the potential it holds for my constituency. To take an example, in Kitwanga, or in the village of Gitwangak, as I said, about 100 workers lost their jobs some three years ago when the mill was shut down. In past years there have been a number of initiatives that have resulted in some retraining. Certainly they're waiting for a wood supply that will give them a kind of short-term solution, but they realize their long-term future lies in remanufacturing and value-adding. The forest renewal plan, with its focus on silviculture, retraining and value-adding, holds tremendous potential for people like those of Kitwanga. The plan's recognition that first nations have an important role to play, as well as a need for some help, is very encouraging. That's one of the reasons I'm supporting this bill.
Of course, with anything that sounds good, or with anything that's endorsed by people like Peter Bentley of Canadian Forest Products, Mike Apsey of the Council of Forest Industries, Jack Munro of the Forest Alliance, Gerry Stoney of the IWA and Vicky Husband of the Sierra Club.... Almost everyone I meet in Skeena is included in supporting this plan; I haven't run into anybody opposed. But there's bound to be a few who are going to criticize, who need to look for something that isn't there. When someone says,
[ Page 10245 ]
"Isn't it a glorious day?" you can always find one person in a crowd who says: "Yeah, but it might rain tomorrow." So when I heard the member for Delta South, I was reminded of that. Instead of looking at the good news that's here, one can think of all kinds of things that might go wrong.
The Liberal Forests critic there, as was mentioned the first day, gave it a two or three on a scale of ten. The same day, a few hours later, he said the investment was great. So we're really not sure where they stand, but they're still waiting to hear their marching orders, I would think. They're still waiting to hear what public opinion has to say to them, and then they can form their position or get their direction straight. I said a number of times that they are like a windsock opposition. In this case they're waiting for the sock to fill up with air so they can tell which way they can go. But unfortunately, it isn't working. The general public supports the plan, and...they are still sitting there waiting.
I should remind the Liberal opposition that they do have a policy. In their policy booklet, adopted September 5, 1991 -- that's the date of the policy -- there's a line there that says: "The Liberal Party of British Columbia recognizes the importance of a stable forest industry in the province. It is also recognized that there is a need to review current practices with a view to securing a more acceptable administrative structure...and land management." It's a pity they didn't remember that before they opened their mouths to comment on the plan itself. There's also another line, which says: "...job retraining programs and a program including research and development that will promote development of value-added and tertiary industry." I guess they've forgotten about that one, too. If the opposition really were committed to their policy, they would support this bill.
I digress. As much fun as it is to see the Liberal-turned-Socred official opposition squirm because their leader supported the same government that gave us the 17 years of past neglect in the forest industry, and as much fun as it is to see the Reform-Social Crediters squirm, I want to get back to the B.C. forest renewal plan. One could say I'm here to praise, deservedly so, Forest Renewal B.C., not to bury the opposition. They're doing that very well all by themselves.
Forest Renewal B.C. We should talk about the agency first, because it has come up for some criticism. The member for Delta South said that it was just another Crown corporation. If you look at the bill carefully, you find that Forest Renewal B.C. will be legally bound to make expenditure decisions reflecting the mandate and priorities set out in the legislation and will report to the Minister of Forests. It will have to submit business plans outlining its activities and expenditures to the Minister of Forests for approval. The business plan will also be placed by the minister before a select standing committee of the Legislature with responsibility for forests for discussion and debate, as explicitly provided for in Bill 32. How is that like a Crown corporation? The accounts must be audited annually, and the annual reports and financial statements will be prepared for the minister, who will then table them in the Legislative Assembly.
[5:45]
Where does the money come from? It comes from increased stumpage or from profits of the lumber industry. It's the same way a farmer might use profits on his crop to buy fertilizer to put back in the land that he's going to use. Yet if you buy the opposition's argument, when he spends some of his profit to buy fertilizer to put back in the land, that is considered taxes. The opposition is starting to play this business of taxes a little too loosely.
What's the money used for? As I mentioned earlier, it's for reforestation of certain NSR lands. It's for reforestation of marginal agricultural lands, stand tending, forest health treatments, improving seedling stock, and research and development. There will be activities to increase timber supply -- partial cutting, commercial thinning and utilization of other species. There will be seed money for value-adding initiatives. Some 30 years ago, B.C. was getting just about two jobs per thousand cubic metres of wood. Today, it's around one job. That trend can't continue. I'm pleased that Forest Renewal B.C. will provide incentives to speed up the value-added portion of the industry.
There will also be resources to repair environmental damage, in stream rehabilitation and fish habitat. There is the forest sector skills council, which will be funded through the forest renewal plan. It's not a case of leaving workers out there to fend for themselves because the industry is changing.
I want to remind members that prior to 1988 we had a section in the Forest Act that said that whenever a mill was shut down, they had to get permission from the Minister of Forests. That changed in the last administration. It was one of those things that was quietly changed. Prior to that there was at least some assurance that the minister might consider the workers when it came time to say whether or not he approved of shutting down the mill. Just prior to 1990 a change was made, and all a forest company had to do was give three months' notice. They didn't need the minister's approval anymore -- just give three months' notice. That kind of callous disregard for the workers in the forests is not going to be tolerated anymore. I am pleased to support a bill from a government which has the courage to deal with those kinds of issues, protects people's jobs and doesn't throw them out there to fend for themselves.
In the 48-point platform we circulated before the election in 1991.... I was hoping that one of the opposition members would read the sections. We said things like: "We will re-establish the link between access to wood and jobs..."; "A New Democrat government will ensure increased processing of forest products to get more jobs in B.C."; "We will restore and protect our working forests"; "A New Democrat government will take immediate steps to eliminate wasteful practices in the forest industry...." And the last one was: "We will end the neglect of our forests."
Interjection.
H. Giesbrecht: Yes, it will cost money, hon. member. But the problem is that you can't stand here and talk about people and protecting their jobs and then turn around and keep talking about saving money.
Forest Renewal B.C. is the means. It's a blueprint for a viable, sustainable forest industry in B.C.'s future. It is keeping one of our promises to the people of B.C., and the beauty of it is that it was done in partnership with business, workers, environmentalists and first nations. That says that it is good government.
This is an excellent piece of legislation. It addresses forestry issues, particularly in the north, the interior and on Vancouver Island, where most of the forest action happens. Maybe the official opposition's initial response to the bill's introduction was so negative because they don't have any members north of Chilliwack. But by now they must have clearly heard the message, and it's time to get onside. The old public opinion windsock that you use as a direction finder, hon. members, is not going to fill up with hot air and show
[ Page 10246 ]
you which way to go and which way to leave. You may just as well follow this government's lead.
F. Jackson: I rise to take my place in the debate, but seeing the lateness of the hour, I will move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
On vote 9: minister's office, $319,041.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm pleased to appear today to present the 1994-95 estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Ministry staff attending during these estimates are John Walsh, deputy minister; Lesley Ewing, acting ADM, management services division; Joy Illington, ADM, policy, planning and research division; Randy Brant, ADM, aboriginal relations division; Ross McMillan, acting ADM, treaty negotiations division; Brian Price, acting director, finance and administration branch; Jamie Kelley, assistant treaty negotiator; and Margery Beer, communications consultation.
In presenting the 1994-95 estimates, I am very pleased to be part of a ministry that is part of the first B.C. government working to bring about real change for aboriginal people in this province. I'm proud that our government is dedicated to building new relationships with first nations, relationships that will enable us to walk side by side into a new future of economic certainty and social progress. Today I will tell you how we intend to translate the government's political commitments into action.
Unlike the rest of Canada south of 60, very few treaties were signed in B.C. with first nations as a way of securing land for settlement. This has left the question of aboriginal rights to land and resources unresolved for over 125 years. But now, finally, we have begun the long-overdue process of building new and far more productive relationships with first nations: relationships based on cooperation and consultation; relationships that will enable aboriginal people to achieve greater self-sufficiency and self-determination; and relationships that will allow aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians to move beyond conflict and confrontation and to work together toward our common goals.
Two years ago our government became the first government of this province to recognize aboriginal rights. We made a commitment then to negotiate treaties with first nations that would define those rights. Since that time, over the past two years, we have laid the foundation for B.C.'s modern-day treaty negotiations in three ways: (1) by working with first nations and the federal government to establish the B.C. Treaty Commission in September 1992 as an independent facilitator of treaty negotiations; (2) by signing a comprehensive agreement with the federal government in June 1993 that sets out how both governments will share the cost of negotiating treaty settlements in this province; and (3) by restructuring the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee in July 1993 to ensure that non-aboriginal British Columbians have a voice in the negotiation process.
It is now time for us to build on this foundation and to begin the actual, concrete and difficult work of negotiating and implementing treaties. Over time, the benefits of treaty negotiation and treaty settlement will far exceed costs. Fair, affordable and lasting treaties with first nations will help lead all British Columbians to greater economic certainty through the growth of healthy, self-sufficient aboriginal communities, and the creation of a more stable economic climate that will help generate jobs and encourage both investment and the resolution of longstanding and divisive land use and resource management conflicts.
In the 1994 budget, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs received a significant percentage increase in funding. To be precise, the ministry's restated estimates for 1993-94 were $17.9 million, while the ministry's total estimated budget for 1994-95 is $32.2 million -- nearly an 80 percent increase over the previous fiscal year.
I would like to tell you what this crucial additional funding will help us do in the months ahead. Foremost, this budget increase guarantees that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs will be able to undertake the treaty negotiation process, which affects every region, every community and ultimately every person in this province. It means that we will be able to build the infrastructures and hire the people we need to set past injustices right, balance the interests of all the parties involved, and develop fair and affordable solutions that will stand the test of time.
As you know, we are committed to a tripartite treaty negotiation process that involves the province, first nations and the federal government as equal partners. The first and most important product of this unique tripartite agreement is the B.C. Treaty Commission, which is an independent body with a mandate to manage a voluntary, made-in-B.C. treaty negotiation process. In just the few months since the commission officially opened its doors, over 40 first nations, representing approximately two-thirds of B.C.'s on-reserve aboriginal population, have filed notice of their intent to participate in treaty negotiations. This year a portion of our budget will go directly to fund provincial treaty negotiating teams, the B.C. Treaty Commission and first nations' negotiating costs.
[2:45]
A portion of our funding over the next year will be dedicated to continuing the negotiations already underway with the Nisga'a Tribal Council. Since British Columbia joined those negotiations in the fall of 1990, a framework agreement setting out the topics and the process for negotiation was signed by all three parties in March 1991.
[ Page 10247 ]
I believe we have made good progress in developing balanced solutions to a very complex situation. I also believe that much of the work we have done on the Nisga'a negotiations will be extremely valuable when we begin negotiations with other first nations across the province. Right now our negotiators are working to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion for all parties. I remain confident that we can reach an agreement in principle during 1994-95.
The signing of the federal-provincial agreement for sharing treaty costs is historic, a crucial step in setting the stage for negotiating modern-day treaties that will be fair to first nations and other parties, promote unbiased negotiations with B.C. first nations, reflect the fiscal capacities of both governments, protect third-party interests and promote healthy aboriginal communities, thereby leading us into a more stable social and economic climate for British Columbia. By telling you how much of our funding will be dedicated to treaty negotiations, I would like to remind all members of a very important fact. What the province spends represents only a portion of the overall costs of negotiating treaties in British Columbia. Under our landmark cost-sharing agreement, the federal government will pay the majority of settlement costs.
I would also like to remind hon. members of the other very necessary ingredient for successful treaty negotiations. If we are going to succeed in fostering a new, more positive relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, it is crucial that all British Columbians feel included in the process of change. Therefore a significant portion of our increased budget will be devoted to public education and public involvement. We are committed to making sure that all British Columbians receive the information they need to fully understand the treaty negotiation process and are offered ample opportunities to make their concerns about the process known before and during treaty negotiations.
The 31-member provincial Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee includes representatives from working people, companies and organizations which may be directly affected by treaty settlements. Committee members come from business and labour, environmental, recreational and fish and wildlife groups, and municipal governments. Each member also sits on one of five subcommittees: energy, petroleum resources and mines; fisheries; lands and forests; governance; and wildlife. These subcommittees meet monthly with members of the provincial and federal governments to exchange information and ideas. These committees are a vital resource for the identification of provincewide interests of third parties.
The ministry's increased funding for 1994-95 will support the provincewide Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, provide for additional regional consultation and public involvement as we move towards specific negotiations, and help defray the costs shared with the federal government of developing and distributing negotiation updates and other public information materials.
Treaties take time, and developing a framework for negotiation is the first step, followed by negotiating an agreement in principle, then drawing up the final treaty and implementing it. We are committed to ensuring that first nations are involved now in developing interim measures that respond to their interests.
The ministry's increased budget for 1994-95 will help fund a variety of interim measures, including interim measures agreements. Interim measures should include consideration of land and resource issues and a range of social and economic matters. Interim measures serve to build capacity and expertise in aboriginal communities and to ensure a smooth transition to treaties for all interests by promoting certainty and stability.
In addition to treaty and interim measures initiatives, we have established government-to-government policy forums to work together to resolve such issues as land and resource management, health and family services, economic development and education. To date, we have established joint policy forums with two major aboriginal groups: the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. These forums allow us to work with first nations to discuss provincewide policy issues and develop mutually acceptable, beneficial solutions.
The two forums already in place have made significant progress on a number of issues. For example, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has already used these forums to get feedback from first nations on proposed amendments to heritage legislation. In addition, the education working group has developed bilateral education agreements between the UBCIC and the federal government and between the UBCIC and the province that will help lay the groundwork for comprehensive discussions on both federal and provincial aboriginal education policies. We are now in the process of establishing two more of these forums, one for off-reserve aboriginal organizations and one with the Metis.
So far I've talked about the treaty negotiation process, the importance of third-party consultation and our commitment now to involving first nations in developing interim measures. What I haven't mentioned yet is the other essential ingredient in our attempt to build new, more honourable relations with first nations in B.C. A significant portion of our 1994-95 budget will continue to be used to address some pressing social and economic issues to assist aboriginal people in strengthening their communities. For example, the First Citizens' Fund will again spend $2.9 million in 1994-95 to support economic development in aboriginal communities. Over the past year, the fund provided loans to create, expand or to upgrade 77 separate small businesses through its business loan program; bursaries to assist 140 aboriginal students enrolled in post-secondary education programs; travel assistance to 11 elders; and significant support to the 21 native friendship centres in B.C., which provide much-needed social and recreational programs for aboriginal people living in urban areas.
In addition, my ministry will continue to support programs to help stop the loss of aboriginal heritage in this province, programs that help preserve traditional aboriginal languages and cultures that are a vital link to restoring self-esteem and self-reliance for aboriginal peoples and their communities. For 1994-95, we have allocated $2.2 million to the first peoples' heritage, language and culture program. Over the past year, the Heritage, Language and Culture Council, an agent of the Crown, provided 16 grants totalling $1.4 million to aboriginal communities and organizations across the province to develop or to operate language and cultural programs, including $300,000 to the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council and $150,000 to the Campbell River band to build local cultural centres.
We have also allocated funds to support the first nations environment program, established to assist first nations in developing and implementing community-based, integrated resource management projects. In 1993-94, this program funded 18 projects proposed and carried out by first nations and aboriginal organizations, including such projects as site-mapping the Quatsino tribal territory, surveying
[ Page 10248 ]
Owikeno Lake, and completing an inventory of Cayoosh Creek watershed.
As you can see, we have an ambitious program planned for 1994-95. The relationships we are working to build with the first nations of this province can't be imposed by the courts or legislated by government. The relationships we want to develop will take time and hard work. The kind of relationships we are working to build can only be achieved through good communication, consultation and negotiation, and by encouraging cooperation and developing mutual trust and respect. I look forward to the challenges we will face in fulfilling our mandate over the next year. Together, ours is an opportunity to bring about fundamental change with aboriginal peoples in this province and to create a stronger, fairer and more prosperous province for all British Columbians.
I look forward to taking part in the discussion that is to ensue.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the ministry, the minister and the ministry staff for the opportunity to be briefed on the estimates we will discuss this year. I realize hon. members have to come in and out during these debates, and it's possible the questions will be tossed around a little bit; but for the most part, if possible, I would like to focus today on vote 9, the minister's office and discussion of the ministry's record and mandate. After we've examined the general philosophy of where the ministry is headed, then perhaps we could take up some of the specific subvote issues.
The minister has been in his portfolio for quite a few months, and I appreciate as well that he seems to have a pretty firm understanding of his ministry, which is promising. Since I have been named to the Aboriginal Affairs critic's role for the official opposition, I hope that I too have gained a sufficient grip on the subject so that we can have a fairly good philosophical discussion on it at the outset. In that context, I think it would be appropriate, for some of the questions I would like to pose, to start with an examination of the state of the ministry: whence we have come and where we are going. Towards the end of my opening remarks, I will pose some of those questions.
[3:00]
Before I do that, I want to make some general comments with regard to the state of aboriginal affairs. I've had the pleasure of examining this subject for several years, as a matter of fact. I reflect upon my own interest in the subject. It started many years ago in the mid-1980s, when we could see some problems in Ontario with regard to the relationship between the Ontario government and aboriginal peoples in that province. I had the pleasure to provide a brief submission to the then-government of Premier Peterson in the first days that he formed a new government. It followed somewhat from a report a few years earlier by the Hon. Keith Penner, the federal minister of Indian Affairs. Indeed, it's worth reflecting on the Penner report, which was submitted in October 1983. For the record, the Penner report acknowledged that first nations peoples have a very complex form of government, which we have come to appreciate as time has passed by. That was not so evident ten years ago.
It's a very important step that gradually Canadians from coast to coast to coast have actually come to terms with the fact that aboriginal peoples, first nations, have had for a very long time -- not just decades, not just centuries, but for an extremely long time in their whole history -- a complex form of government. I had the opportunity even prior to the mid-1980s of visiting several aboriginal lands throughout North America: Navajos in Arizona in the early 1970s; the Iroquois in New York State, Ontario and Quebec more than 20 years ago.
The Penner report also points out that the term "nation," as it would apply to first nation, does not have to -- and certainly does not -- imply some sort of separatist connotation. It simply means a nation comprises people who have a common language, culture and history. Frankly, I think some initiatives taken by the federal and provincial governments to foster and promote heritage and language are the right direction to go. It has always been ironic to me that Canadian society, which embraces the notion of a multicultural society, somehow has denied that in the past to first nations. Indeed, I suppose the Canadian or provincial government's approach to first nations has always been in the context of assimilation. Yet, quite properly, aboriginal peoples have said that they have their own distinct language and culture and what not, and it's a very strong point, because that contributes to a multicultural society. In that context the term "nation" is not antagonistic.
I don't want to belabour the point too much. I don't intend to give a whole exposition on the Penner report: I'll just hit some of the highlights. The Penner report recommended the explicit recognition of aboriginal right to self-government, perhaps to be somewhat entrenched, if possible, in the constitution of Canada, which has not occurred, as we all know; that aboriginal peoples be recognized as first nations who form a distinct order of government; and that aboriginal peoples have jurisdiction to determine membership as well as full legislative and policy-making powers within the boundaries of present aboriginal lands. The Penner report also advocated phasing out the Department of Indian Affairs within five years. We know how difficult that has been. Further, it said specialized tribunals may need to be established to decide disputes in relationship between the first nations governments and the federal and provincial governments, federal funding to first nations governments, and so on.
The point is that in the context of its time, the Penner report in 1983 was considered a fairly radical document. Yet in the context of 1994, one could argue -- and I think very successfully -- that we've progressed beyond the Penner report. While some aspects of the Penner report have not become institutionalized in some sort of framework of government, nonetheless some of the premises that were considered radical in 1983 are somewhat accepted, if not embraced, in the context of 1994. So we have come a long way in that kind of context, but at the same time we have some way to go. It is an extremely complex, challenging and difficult set of circumstances which we find ourselves in right now.
There is nothing concrete that would suggest this, but we sure get the impression that the current federal government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, is moving in the direction of perhaps doing away with the Department of Indian Affairs somewhere along the line. It may be more difficult. Some people have suggested that it's especially difficult if you're eliminating a whole department where there are many public service jobs, and we wouldn't want to do that. That's for the minister to figure out, I suppose -- how to get rid of a department. Nonetheless, it has been expressed over the years in many different quarters that we ought to get rid of the Indian Act. There are many people -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- who are quite dissatisfied with the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs, and they feel that it must be done away with.
It raises some other questions as well. If -- it is a big if and a bit hypothetical at this stage -- the federal government is
[ Page 10249 ]
actually successful in withdrawing its ministry and its responsibilities, what implication does that have for the aboriginal peoples themselves? In my short experiences with trying to reach as many people as possible among the aboriginal community, I get all sorts of varying answers on this one. Some suggest that you can't move fast enough to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act; others suggest that we just hold on a moment and that what we really need is to protect ourselves in this regard. I sometimes wonder whether the provincial government might be somewhat forced into a situation whereby it would take up the responsibility of the federal government.
Seeing the green light here, my first question to the minister is: as we've seen the development of aboriginal relations with the non-aboriginal Canadian community, and as we see some progression towards the relinquishment of federal responsibility, has the provincial government really anticipated its changing role? It is perhaps an opportunity for the minister to express how the ministry has changed, what changes have taken place from the former administration and how it sees itself filling a vacuum or usurping some of the role that might be relinquished by the federal government, including fiduciary responsibility and so on. Perhaps we can look from whence we've come and, in that context, get some idea of where we're going.
The Chair: These lights seem to work irrationally, so I'll try to keep a timer at this stage.
Interjection.
The Chair: I suspect that is probably the case, in any event.
Would the hon. minister like to reply?
Hon. J. Cashore: I take it that the hon. member could have gone on longer.
The Chair: He was entitled to another 20 minutes as the rules go, so we're grateful to him for his brevity.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm delighted to see that members of my office, being vitally interested in what's taking place in this process, are present in the gallery: ministerial assistant Barbara Clague, Lynda McPhee and Bob Peart, ministerial assistant. We're glad to have them with us.
I would like to recognize that the hon. member has also gained quite a grasp of these issues in the approximately seven months since he's been the critic. I think we recognize that we're both very much on a learning curve here, and it's the kind of educational process which I think we can agree is very enjoyable, because we're at the cutting edge in terms of Canadian history. I appreciate the comments affirming the general direction, and I believe this is one of the contexts in which our role as government and opposition can work to provide the kind of stimulation and lively dialogue and debate that can help us hone our position so that it serves our people well during this time, which is a time of change.
The hon. member asked me to comment on my philosophical perspective with regard to the ministry, and he helped me with that by putting it into the context of talking about the federal Department of Indian Affairs, recognizing that the present minister, Minister Irwin, has indicated his commitment to doing away with the Indian Act. I think that Minister Irwin has, in many ways, a much more difficult task, because historically he finds himself responsible for a huge bureaucracy. I think that for many years ministers in that position had seen their role as maintaining the institution that came into existence as a result of our history and the way in which the federal Indian Act came into being.
It is refreshing to hear discussions about change, about doing away with the Indian Act and getting into a new and honourable relationship. As I said, that is more difficult because of the albatross and the legacy of history, and the realization that you can't bring about worthwhile change by suddenly saying: "Okay, that's all gone." Therefore one of the responsibilities we recognize that the federal government has in going through this transition is that it not seek in this process to divest itself of its traditional responsibilities. To do so could seriously cause a sense of mistrust within the fairly positive ambience of treaty negotiations and the whole climate that's out there among various parties that recognize that negotiation is better than litigation and that we'd best negotiate hard and strong in a context where we can come up with mutually acceptable agreements through that process.
I must say with regard to our federal counterparts that I do have some concerns around the issue of off-loading. I think that for the discussion between the two senior levels of government to become focused on that issue is, in a sense, to be retrospective when we need to be prospective and to be looking at what we are able to accomplish together. I think it's very important for the federal government to recognize that their historic responsibility goes on for quite some time.
On the other hand, this is a very small ministry in terms of costs and staff, even though we have that more-than-80-percent increase this year. It seems like a whopping increase when you consider that this is not a large ministry. It is staffing up to take on a new program to enable us to move to the next steps in this process, one that leads to certainty, to a better climate for business investment and to an honourable relationship between first nations people and all the other people of our province. Given that we have that opportunity, I think our task is in some ways much less complex than that of the federal government.
[3:15]
At the same time, I think we can truly see ourselves as an agent of change, a ministry that has a responsibility in government for a period of time. Hopefully, this ministry for which I am responsible will not become institutionalized to the extent that it creates an ongoing need to perpetuate itself. Hopefully, we will be able, in our understanding of our role within government, to see the day when the functioning of the people within our province carries on, and that through line ministries and the arrangements we have been able to devolve we will not have created a need for an institution but rather new opportunities for a way that recognizes the importance of self-respect leading to self-determination and self-government -- and that in doing so we have created within that context a new way of walking side by side with people of first nations.
Clearly, at the very basis of government philosophy must be a sense of taking a snapshot of what is out there at the present time. What has been the legacy of the more than 200 years in eastern Canada and at least 125 years in our part of Canada? What has been the legacy with regard to first nations people? I think we find that unemployment is a serious problem. Poverty is rampant. We know that the statistics relating to suicide and other social problems are unconscionable. We know the statistics with regard to infant mortality are still far too high. And we also know there are
[ Page 10250 ]
some very bright rays of hope in the accomplishments of first nations people having overcome these challenges and found a way to take their place with regard to recognizing the importance of self-esteem and self-determination. Very often we find that such persons have come into prominence and positions of leadership and are indeed going to be part of the work that now needs to be done in order to build this new relationship.
In a nutshell, my philosophy is that we have an opportunity to be an agent of change within a historic context, which is an outstanding opportunity and a formidable responsibility.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's remarks with regard to the pressure that is being placed on the federal government, whether it's internally or from the various communities generally. He commented that the federal minister should not be so pressured to relinquish its responsibility. I think the provincial minister is quite correct: what we do not want to do is to proceed so quickly that we jeopardize those concerns expressed within the aboriginal community, as well as in the non-aboriginal community, particularly with regard to its fiduciary responsibilities.
There was a second aspect -- given the confusion of the time; I thought that was a pretty fast half-hour that went by -- that I want to also pursue in a very general context. The minister referred in his opening remarks to the tremendous increase in the expenditures of the ministry. I want to assure the minister that this is one of those areas.... While various people, including ourselves in the official opposition, have said that we have to be very careful how we spend money and about increases of expenditures, at the same time we recognize the particular problem. We're in a period of genuine transition in which we're trying to resolve many different outstanding issues with regard to the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, the relationship between the federal and provincial governments and the first nations peoples, and so on. Some increased expenditures by government are required.
In this context, while the percentages seem extreme in one sense, they are not in quite another, if we're in fact moved to try to resolve some of these outstanding issues. In that context, it's no surprise. In fact, I suppose expectations are even there that there would be a fairly significant increase in the area of aboriginal affairs.
Perhaps -- again in a more philosophical context, but it has some practical implications as well -- in setting out such a budget, we know full well that we're going into sharp increases in expenditures, and that sort of thing. By the same token, while we recognize that moneys should be allocated for some of the things that the minister has mentioned, there are other areas as well. As we anticipate perhaps resolving some of these problems in a financial context, are we thinking of the cost down the road in terms of land settlements? Are we perhaps in a situation whereby we're allocating some funds now...? Some householders would strategize that we're going to be facing heavy expenditures some time in the future. In that context, are we going to save up some moneys for the time being that would be allocated later on? Is there any sort of general strategy that the minister is embarking on, and perhaps thinking about the financial implications for the future, as we resolve some of these issues?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, this government is thinking about costs down the road. As you know, the federal-provincial treaty negotiations funding agreement is quite an historic agreement and, I think, an outstanding accomplishment. It deals with both negotiation funding and settlement costs. All of this has to happen within the context of the government's overall plan. The government has indicated our commitments to balance the budget within the next few years. What we're looking at has to be managed within the context of that overall framework -- as it has to be with regard to any other ministry of government, no matter what it is. I can think of any ministry of government and indicate tremendous needs down the road when I consider growth -- the need for infrastructure, schools, bridges, roads, etc.
What we're talking about here is the eventuality of settlement costs in a process that recognizes, first of all, a very favourable and appropriate cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. Secondly, it recognizes the economic advantage brought about by a society that moves from a dysfunctional part into a part that functions in a creative, hopeful way and therefore brings certainty. That certainty should be a benefit for first nations people who are now experiencing -- as all of us as Canadians and British Columbians are experiencing -- enormous personal and social costs because of that dysfunction. I think it can be traced to the fact that there has not been an honourable relationship between senior governments and first nations. It has been a paternalistic relationship that has not shown respect for traditions and protocols, and it has come from a superior mind-set. It has not been helpful. We recognize that in looking forward to the eventual settlement of treaties, which is a major step -- not the only step -- toward building certainty and establishing a respectful and honourable relationship. What happens down the road is certainly a worthwhile investment.
C. Serwa: I just want to establish my presence here to take part in the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Before I do that, I want to acknowledge a former constituent of mine who is here with us, Randy Brant. He was a very high-profile constituent. At one time we both took a road that led us to Victoria. I got here a little earlier than Randy, but I'm pleased to see Randy here. He was certainly an outstanding citizen in our community, a pastor of a church in Westbank and very active in a wide variety of fields in Kelowna in the central Okanagan, formerly Okanagan South. Welcome, Randy. It's nice to see you here.
The minister has been courteous enough to let me look at the speech he gave prior to my entry into Committee A. There are a couple of things there that I will touch on. First of all, I want to say that when I enter into this debate, I am fairly well aware of some of the challenges facing the aboriginal people. In the previous government, I was given the honour of acting as the chair of the Premier's committee inquiring into native language, heritage and cultural affairs. It was a major opportunity for me. Certainly, as the minister alluded to earlier, it gave me entry into this learning curve and a greater understanding of some of the challenges facing aboriginal people not only in British Columbia but probably in all of North America.
In most cases, we have a situation where a culture is fundamentally in shock, and trying to blend old ways and new ways is a very major challenge. British Columbia, because of its geography, is a most unusual province in Canada due to the richness of the land and the salmon-bearing rivers. At the time of contact, we had something like one-third of Canada's aboriginal population residing in the province -- estimated to be about 350,000 people. At the present time, I believe we have something like 80,000 status natives and approximately 70,000 non-status
[ Page 10251 ]
aboriginal people in the province, who are generally found in the urban areas. In my community of Kelowna, for example, quite a number of urban native people are living throughout the community. The point of the exercise is the understanding that there is no such thing as a stereotyped aboriginal person in British Columbia.
Of the 11 native language families found throughout Canada, nine are found in British Columbia: seven of those are unique to this province, and two in the northeast are shared by other regions. More than 27 tribal councils in the province are made up of quite a number of bands. So the challenge here is very great.
We have to understand -- and I think that was the purpose of the Premier's Committee on Native Heritage, Culture and Language -- that it is not simply a matter of throwing money and thinking we will find a solution there. I certainly heard a great deal about the residential schools and their negative effect, because they broke a chain that had lasted for thousands of years -- perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 years. They broke that linkage, and that break can never really be made up completely again. A great deal was lost at that particular point in time. There are things that we can be fairly proud of, but that certainly is not one. I understand that much of the challenge that the aboriginal people are faced with is perhaps related to things like the residential schools.
[3:30]
I have a lot of questions to ask the minister with respect to the negotiating process. Obviously, for British Columbians collectively -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- it's a major issue of the moment; there's no question about that. The minister is quite correct in stating that what we're looking for is certainty, so that logging or mining business interests, native interests, the public interest collectively and certainly the government interest can set that base and then move forward without a great deal of interruption. Hopefully, the conclusion of the negotiations will provide that degree of certainty, although they will be over a long period of time. I'm optimistic that they will, but the negotiating process will be a fairly long, extensive affair lasting ten or more years at least. I don't think we're under any misapprehension that they will be shortened in that particular period.
Like the bands, the regions they occupy are very diverse as well -- everything from the very urban areas, like the Musqueam or the Squamish people, to other bands and tribal councils in very remote areas, which traditionally were strong civilizations based on the abundant supply of food. But with the modern economy moving away from that, they have become forfeits and basically have-nots, and things have to change there.
If we recapture the self-esteem and pride in self in this negotiating process and by the end of the exercise, then we will have achieved a great deal. The aboriginal people have all the capabilities of anyone, provided that the environment enables the capacity and competence to come out, and so far it hasn't. There are certainly many challenges, as I've said.
We'll be looking at and asking questions from our Social Credit perspective on what the negotiating base is and the cost of negotiating. As yours is the lead ministry for aboriginal affairs in British Columbia, we'll also be asking questions about the involvement of other government ministries and the amount of the budget from Attorney General, perhaps Transportation and Highways, or Employment and Investment -- all of those that have budgets and allocations for aboriginal affairs. I think it would be prudent and proper to have that information from you as the lead ministry.
The minister had alluded -- tongue-in-cheek, I think -- to this being the first government to do anything in the province of British Columbia. I might remind the minister that not only did Bill Vander Zalm, our former Premier, initiate the committee looking into native language, heritage and cultural matters, but he also opened the door for the negotiating process and established the principles of negotiating agreements. All of that was in the works, and I'm rather proud of the fact that the minister was a little bit lenient in his self-appraisal of the current government; that in fact the door had been opened and that the recognition had been there that we needed to stabilize the entire community in the province of British Columbia and then proceed as one into the future. With that, I'll sit down. I believe that the former minister of aboriginal affairs would like to have a few minutes for an introductory speech, and then we'll turn it over to the official opposition.
J. Weisgerber: It's indeed a pleasure to be here for the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Let me say, to begin with, that the three years -- or almost three years -- I spent as Minister of Native Affairs, the first minister ever to be given sole responsibility for native affairs in any province in the history of the country, were some of the most rewarding of my life. I certainly can't imagine anything that would give a person more satisfaction, more information, or more experience and insight into a significant part of our British Columbia culture than the ministry I had, which the minister now enjoys. I envy him that experience a little, having enjoyed it once and knowing how fulfilling it can be.
I couldn't help recognizing, during that period of time, how wrong our system had gone in dealing with aboriginal people in this province and in this country. It seemed to me that by every indicator and every measure one could take, whether it be economic or social, the system simply wasn't working. I must say today that it still isn't working very well. As I travelled across the country, it seemed to me that the situations were all too familiar, whether I was in Alberta, Quebec or Labrador. The problems faced by Indian people in those communities were not identical, but they were similar.
In that period of time I don't think one could help but be convinced of the need to resolve land claims in British Columbia. We went into the process in 1988, not with the intention of entering into land claims negotiations. From statements made in 1988, I think it was very clear that that wasn't the direction the government intended to go. We went into this process intending to find ways within our existing structure to deal with the economic and social issues, but to do that outside the framework of land claims negotiation. The more deeply one became involved in the issues, the harder it was to resist and to deny the need to settle land claims. In 1990, while I was minister, for the first time in the history of the province the government agreed to enter into the Nisga'a land claims and to start a process that would see British Columbia actively involved in the settlement of all the outstanding land claims. I look back on that as one of the achievements in government that I'll always take a certain amount of satisfaction in. I won't say pride, but I will say satisfaction. That was something that was worth doing, that needed to be done and that was perhaps overdue.
Since we started that process, I've been concerned that there may be the belief that the willingness to enter into land claims -- or even the settlement of land claims themselves -- was going to be a panacea for the problems faced by aboriginal people across the province. If you accept the argument that the lack of treaties in British Columbia is the
[ Page 10252 ]
significant difference rationalizing the land claims process in British Columbia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and perhaps Labrador as well.... If the lack of treaties is the fundamental problem, one would be led to believe that in those jurisdictions where there were treaties, there should not be the same problems. That, as we know, is simply not the case. Its wealth in itself is not necessarily the solution. If one looks at Treaty 8 bands, particularly in Alberta, where they have significant landholdings with mineral rights -- some with very significant petroleum resources -- there's a lot of wealth in the bands. While the economic pressures are different, the social concerns continue to exist. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that means aboriginal people can't solve their problems. It means that the yoke that comes through the Department of Indian Affairs seems to be part of the problem. It's the only common denominator across the board.
Wealth, the lack of wealth, geographic locations, a different makeup of people, different historical and tribal backgrounds and different connections with bands in the United States -- there is a whole set of variables and still a constant that exists. The constant is the Department of Indian Affairs and its involvement in the lives of Indian peoples. I think we should be careful in being led to believe that the resolution of land claims in British Columbia is going to be the resolution of many of the issues that Indian people and governments -- federal and provincial -- would like to see resolved. Indeed, I think all of us share an interest in finding a better way of dealing with them.
As is the nature of our business, I'm here now not as the minister but as a critic of the minister, and that's what I will focus my energies on. That's, as they say, why I get paid the big bucks: to come in and act as a critic of the activities of government. The concerns I have over the actions taken by the current government, by the previous minister and by this one are, first of all, about the haste with which government moved to recognize aboriginal title in the inherent right to self-government without understanding what either of those terms meant. If the minister disagrees with me, I'm sure he'll take this opportunity to lay out an explanation, a rationale or an understanding of what aboriginal title means and what's involved in the inherent right to self-government. I think the government, at the urging of the Premier, moved to recognize those things first and then sought to define them later, and I have a strong suspicion that they have yet to succeed in either of those definitions. We will, over the course of the next few days, probe that at some length.
I'm also concerned about the process for land claims negotiations -- the lack of public involvement and the lack of openness. I have great concern that British Columbians will not accept, support or ratify agreements which they did not have a role in and negotiations to which they were not privy.
I'm deeply concerned with the direction that the government has taken over the last year or so in the signing of interim agreements. It seems that the government started on a path which I thought was a reasonable one. Indeed, not too many months ago, I complimented the then-Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on the signing of the interim agreement with the Nisga'a, leading to their treaty negotiations or as part of their land claims negotiation process. I thought that the Nisga'a interim agreement was a reasonable and sensible approach to a very serious question that will arise in every land claim -- that is, the interim measures that would see the parties through the negotiating process.
[3:45]
I have an enormous amount of concern over the interim agreements that the government has signed outside the land claims negotiating process. It seems to me, first of all, that the government is getting ahead of itself -- I can only believe in the interests of putting out local grass fires, such as small, minor disputes -- when it moves in, and settles and signs interim agreements in order to resolve a separate issue, not an issue around land claims. Indeed, we have seen, in areas like the Clayoquot, poorly thought-out interim agreements signed -- if one is to believe the news reports -- that apparently neither side understood. We had the rather unfortunate spectacle of the Premier signing the Clayoquot interim agreement, and then coming back and explaining to the media what it meant, and the chief saying: "No, that wasn't at all what it meant." Then the chiefs had a little press conference and explained what they thought the agreement meant. Then the minister, I think at, got involved with the Premier, and they had a third press conference to explain what they both thought the interim agreement meant.
Those are the kinds of agreements that cause very serious problems in the negotiating process, not only with the people directly affected. Indeed, they set a precedent that will be used by everyone else undertaking to enter into land claims negotiation and wanting to sign an interim agreement. If I were doing the negotiating, I would most certainly find the most advantageous model of interim agreements and use that as the starting point for negotiations.
The government, I know, was desperate to get an agreement on the Clayoquot. The Premier was going to Germany, and he wanted to take a paper along with him. He wanted to be able to make a public relations statement on the Clayoquot and on the involvement of the people there. I think that in retrospect, however, the people and the government will find that it was a very costly gesture in order to get that public relations hit before going to Europe. This is only one of a number of these interim agreements that seem to be following a pattern. I think it's going to cause a great deal of concern in the land claims negotiations over the next few years.
With that introduction to the issues -- at least, the core issues I see in the ministry -- I will certainly look forward to hearing from the minister perhaps now and later on during the week.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll make a few general comments in response, recognizing, as the hon. member and others have stated, that they will be canvassing some of these issues in more detail a bit later.
First, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Peace River South and the hon. member for Okanagan West. In listening to the comments of both hon. members and, indeed, the hon. critic for the Liberal Party, I think it's obvious that there's a tremendous resource of background information and personal knowledge in this room in an area where all of us have acknowledged the enjoyment of being in a learning situation with regard to working with first nations on behalf of the province. I think it's good to recognize that there seems to be a lot of unanimity here in recognizing that the way things have been done in the past is simply not acceptable and that there's a need for change.
In saying that the negotiation of modern treaties is not a panacea, the hon. member for Peace River South is absolutely right. Of itself, negotiating treaties is not going to turn around a number of concerns we all have with regard to finding a new and better relationship with first nations people -- one that is more creative for them as well as for the rest of us. It's very clear, therefore, with the initiatives of this government, which involve virtually every line ministry, that we are seeking on a number of fronts to build a much
[ Page 10253 ]
more valuable relationship with first nations people. That any of those initiatives of itself is a panacea is certainly not being said. No one has ever said that; no one would expect that to be the way we should proceed.
By taking a number of initiatives that are underway and putting them together, I am very proud of a government that has recognized the importance not only of campaigning on recognizing the issues regarding first nations -- those issues that must be negotiated and that new relationship that must be built -- but also of following through on that on a number of fronts. It is doing so in the context of taking a very fiscally responsible approach, because it recognizes the value of the certainty that can be built into that process.
I also think we need to recognize, with the benefit of hindsight, that historic treaties negotiated many years ago are in some instances flawed. In some instances there are problems in putting them into a modern context, given the concepts of the time in which they came about.
Having said that and having embarked on the adventure of developing new, modern treaties, I acknowledge the hon. member, who is the former Minister of Native Affairs, for having brought British Columbia into the treaty negotiation process with regard to the Nisga'a. I daresay that once we have an agreement in principle with regard to that negotiation, this will help tremendously in being able to communicate a vision of what a modern-day treaty really looks like. I think it will be reassuring for all parties and will send a message that we are indeed on the right track. Until we have that agreement in principle, I think we'll have to do everything we possibly can to do a very good job with regard to public education, working with third parties and ensuring that everybody recognizes that they have a role in making this process work. I'll turn to an example, recognizing that it's not only government or first nations that are going to make this work; it's going to be the development of an ethic that permeates our entire society that will make this work.
When I was Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, there were some very serious issues out there that caused great concern over the allocation of wildlife when it came to non-aboriginal persons who had for many years enjoyed being able to go out hunting. There was a time when circumstances were generating a great deal more heat than light, but then we saw the emergence of leadership both within the community that is involved in wildlife issues -- the B.C. Wildlife Federation -- and the leadership of various aboriginal communities. It reached the point that, the year before last, the theme of the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention had to do with this very issue. Instead of people being at one another's throats, they sat down in various rooms and had panel discussions. There was interaction, and at the end of that, a lot of the tension had gone out of the issue -- not that it doesn't continue to be an issue where there is some tension, but there was much greater understanding. I think we have to count on the wider public to be learning as much as possible about this subject and to be inviting first nations people into their midst to explain something about their vision. That has to be a two-way street. That is very important as part of this whole process.
With regard to the hon. member's concern in his role as critic -- I appreciate the point about the government moving with too much haste -- that's a criticism that can be said fairly easily in just about any circumstance. On the other side of that is the criticism that if you dither and don't provide leadership which indicates that you are moving into these areas and addressing them, it creates the kind of uncertainty that drives away investment, for instance. I understand that literally millions of dollars are parked at the borders of B.C., not coming into this province. Those are dollars which could be stimulating the economy, producing jobs and employment and new hope for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. We have a climate of uncertainty, and where that climate exists, we have an investment situation that's not as good as it could be. It is therefore important that it be recognized that we are making appropriate progress, that we're moving not too hastily but incrementally in addressing these issues.
The hon. member made a point about the openness of the public information process. I'm the first to recognize that we are at an early stage of all the work that needs to be done in this area. We have allocated resources for it and are working with first nations and the federal government to that end. We have completed a document, available to government offices, to help with some of the basic information needed to explain the treaty negotiation process. We are moving in that direction, but I take the hon. member's point. It's a valid point that we need to be moving in an ever more informative direction in getting the information out. We are doing that, and we are going to continue to work diligently on that issue.
The hon. member mentioned concerns over the process with regard to interim measures, and I can simply say to the hon. member that I disagree with him completely. The interim measures agreement in the Clayoquot with the Nuu-chah-nulth chiefs was a very significant and creative agreement which I believe is going to be very effective in bringing about the hope for better relationships. First nations groups and third-party groups from all over the province have been in touch with me, stating how much they appreciate that agreement and the effort and importance that this government placed on achieving it.
[4:00]
While it's possible to say that this person or that person has criticized it, I wish, hon. member, that you could have witnessed -- as many of us did -- the array of interests that were present at the signing of that agreement. They spoke glowingly about what this indicated in terms of a new era of understanding and cooperation -- not the least of which were two people from MacMillan Bloedel, who spoke very positively. They made a statement, which I would be glad to share with you, that indicated a recognition that their company had, in the past, not functioned in a way that they felt they should have functioned, and which they have now learned needs to change. It was a recognition that we are coming into relationships, and if we are going to achieve respect, we need to recognize the importance of being aware of what has gone wrong in the past and what changes need to be made. I commend MacMillan Bloedel for coming to that celebration and being so open in their recognition of wanting to be part of a new ethic and a new way of doing things.
A. Warnke: Actually, I appreciate the remarks of the member for Peace River South as well. Having gone through the experience of being minister, he provides that historical background, which I think does us all a tremendous favour. As well, I appreciate the remarks by the member for Okanagan West. Some of the comments made by both those members and the minister lead me to explore some of the concepts we've been using. The best way to pursue this is in the context of the term "sovereignty."
Perhaps I'll just back up a little bit, hon. Chair. As I see it, there are several central issues with regard to aboriginal concerns in our province. I'll mention them: the nature and structure of the organization of self-government is one; second, the move toward some sort of comprehensive
[ Page 10254 ]
agreement concerning land claims settlement and entitlement; third, economic self-sufficiency and development on aboriginal land, and I believe this was touched on by the minister; and fourth -- and the minister mentioned this as well -- is the delivery of health care and social services, as well as education, to aboriginal peoples. Those are four central issues that I certainly want to explore. But when we deal with the nature and structure of the organization of self-government for native peoples, there are a couple of concepts that are worth exploring here.
I would like the minister to respond in the context of articulating what the provincial government's view is here -- that is, the provincial government's view of sovereignty. Allow me, hon. Chair, to elaborate just a little on this point. Sovereignty of first nations has been expressed by many aboriginals as never having been fully extinguished. Georges Erasmus put it that sovereignty of first nations was never fully extinguished. It lives and is still the basis for the development of a more acceptable and appropriate arrangement between Canada and the first nations. John Amagolik puts it in the context that sovereignty does not come from the Crown or the constitution but from people, histories, traditions, cultures, and so on.
On the other hand, we have someone I actually know quite well, Doreen Quirk, who is the former mayor of Markham, Ontario, representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. She concedes that municipal government, as a model of self-government, is perhaps much more limited than what aboriginal peoples are seeking. Perhaps they need to seek some other kind of model. But there too she has expressed a need for a definition of sovereignty. I guess in this kind of confusion there are mixed signals, and yet from the aboriginal perspective, there seem to be some pretty tight views of what sovereignty means.
I'd like to explore with the minister whether the ministry and the provincial government have given any thought to this concept, and what that leads to in terms of establishing a certain form of self-government.
Hon. J. Cashore: The starting point for us is to recognize that in the context of treaty negotiations we will be talking about the concept of self-government. In a very practical, hands-on manner, therefore, self-government will be dealt with not in the airy-fairy context of philosophy -- how many angels may dance on the head of a pin -- but in actual cases. Negotiating teams will be able to talk about what their vision and concept of self-government is and how that would work.
Instead of getting into concepts like sovereignty, which I think can be a red herring in this discussion, what we have as tools to look at as this is emerging are such things as the Delgamuukw decisions -- what the court has had to say about extinguishment and the kinds of qualifications that are put on it within that context. There's the Sparrow decision, and there are some other court decisions. An array of findings have come out of that court scenario. At the same time, we recognize that the courts are saying to us that it's better to negotiate than litigate; in fact, in Delgamuukw we have been given that direction.
Self-government, then, is something that is part of the practical application of the treaty negotiation process, which I think is far more useful than coming up with some sort of non-contextual definition. I think it's also very important to say that we look upon self-government very much within the Canadian context. We look upon the role of the Canadian government as one that's defined by that government's constitution. We see the role of the provincial government as one that's defined by the various documents that deal with that context. And we are in the process of developing a new relationship, which can only be defined effectively in the context of those negotiations.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's answer. I want to put it also in a context that the member for Peace River South put forward, the context of the provincial government perhaps conceding the concept of the inherent right to self-government. Indeed, the view I've come across is that the inherent right to self-government actually means that the governing authority of first nations would be sovereign. I think this is also perhaps a problem of confusion. I'd just like to follow up on what that member was trying to point out within the context of the question I put forward. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on this concept of the inherent right to self-government, taking into consideration an impression out there that the governing authority of the first nations is sovereign. Perhaps he could clarify that for us.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, we see this within the Canadian context. We believe the shape of that inherent right will emerge in the treaty-making process. Therefore to impose an overarching definition at this point would not be helpful. I think it's very important we recognize that this is all within the Canadian context.
A. Warnke: Another point raised by the member for Peace River South needs some exploration. As we move to seek some sort of resolution on the concepts of self-government and land claims settlements, this must necessarily involve third-party consultation, especially interest groups, local governments, people in industry, and companies which may have certain forest licences or mining interests. While there is at least the appearance of some procedure for third-party access, there has also been an expression that the third parties are not at the table. It's not that they necessarily want to be involved in the negotiations, but they certainly want to observe what is going on. It's going to have some sort of direct impact on their futures, whether it's a municipal or local government or a company that has forest or mining interests.
I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the consultation process involving third parties and assess whether the current process is really satisfactory. How could we improve it? I think the minister is quite correct that the last thing we need is any perception by the public that they are not involved in the resolution of these issues. As a matter of fact, we're all aware what happened when there was a perception of a backroom deal on the Charlottetown accord. Maybe we shouldn't be spooked by the Charlottetown accord, but we do not want a repetition of that kind of situation. Some people are very nervous about the attempt to establish some sort of resolution between aboriginals and non-aboriginals, because the resolution is going to exclude third parties. Therefore I'm wondering if the minister would comment on the process and on what steps can be taken to avoid the sorts of problems that we witnessed in the Charlottetown accord and to ensure that people are involved in the process.
Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very good question; it's one area where we are making good headway. Recently the Third Party Advisory Committee has been revised and changed into the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. The five subcommittees are sectoral advisory committees. Members of TNAC are also on those committees and meet on a regular basis. TNAC has 31 members. I'm one of the co-chairs, along
[ Page 10255 ]
with Minister Irwin. We seek as much as possible to maintain a close, hands-on ministerial basis. Understandably, it's more difficult for Minister Irwin than for me, given the vastness of his responsibilities in Canada. We do discuss this from time to time on the telephone or when we show up at the same meeting, and we are both very much committed to continuing to make this process more effective.
[4:15]
In the context of change, I know that people are going to have legitimate questions as to how their interests are represented. Therefore it behooves government to listen to concerns and to do everything possible to ensure they are heard. That involves working in the area of public education, discussing general concepts such as those in the estimates, and always trying to develop the philosophical base, the umbrella under which we would ultimately do negotiations.
As you know, when we set up the negotiating teams for federal and provincial governments and for the entity negotiating as first nations, they come into that process with particular mandates and responsibilities. When federal and provincial governments come there, each has a mandate to represent the interests of their people.
In the allocation of this year's funding we have to staff our treaty negotiating teams. We have a responsibility to put in place the people who will be able to do that well and creatively. It is also a tenet of negotiations that if any team goes in unprepared, the entire negotiations suffer. It behooves us to ensure that negotiating teams arerepresenting the interests of third parties and to listen very seriously to what is said and to what others have to say about how that process can be bettered.
We also need to recognize the issue of municipalities. An MOU has been signed, and there's a process underway to ensure that that area is appropriately covered. Also, as the treaty negotiations develop, regional committees will be able to meet and discuss third-party interests in those settings. There is a prototype of that kind of committee with regard to the Nisga'a negotiations at the present time, and a close working discussion between that committee and the Nisga'a team. I welcome suggestions with regard to how we can improve this process, which we are continuing to improve.
J. Weisgerber: Before we get much further down the road, I'm concerned that we may be moving away from the issue of self-government without having canvassed the subject at any length.
I was particularly concerned by the minister's statement that third-party negotiations are an integral part of land claims negotiations, and that we'll have to see how these unfold for us to get a flavour of the direction the government is going on its position on self-government. I can't imagine anything worse than us having five, six or more claims being negotiated at one time, and the negotiators being there on behalf of the province without any direction from the government in the area of self-government and without there being a model toward which the provincial government was working. Surely to goodness that's part of the problem that exists around this whole process of land claims negotiation. The government is playing its cards so close to its vest that it doesn't want to share with other British Columbians the position it's taking in the negotiations.
The government has to have a clear policy formulated on aboriginal self-government. It has to decide what areas of jurisdiction it believes are appropriate for aboriginal governments to assume, which areas of jurisdiction are federal, which are provincial and which would be more appropriately resolved, or dealt with, or managed, by aboriginal governments.
I've also had a concern for some time now that we're going to see significantly different forms of self-government among the various tribal councils, or perhaps among the bands. I see it from a purely administrative point of view as something that will become very difficult. "Nightmare to administer" springs to my mind. I can't imagine, for example, the 200-odd bands in the province each having a different form of self-government with different areas of jurisdiction -- provincial in one area and another belonging to the band or tribal council. That doesn't seem to me to be administratively something we could deal with efficiently.
We have to come up front and talk about things like jurisdiction over taxation, or the application of criminal law, and who has the responsibility for administration of federal and provincial statutes and what precedence they have. Gambling on reserves: is the government going to adopt a policy that says the provincial government has jurisdiction on gambling? I can't imagine the minister managing a whole series of negotiations without having a central position. I can't imagine any rationale, particularly in the area of self-government, for not putting that position forward. Going into land claims negotiations, one can argue -- not to my satisfaction, but one can argue -- that this is a little bit of a poker game and that everybody kind of keeps their cards tucked in tight because they don't want to give away how much they're prepared to give on this or that issue. That's a flaw and a mistake and not the way to approach negotiations.
Even if you accepted the argument on the land claims settlement side of the debate, I can't imagine adopting a parallel with relation to the delegation of authority, or an agreement on levels of authority. It seems to me that if the government is going to negotiate in good faith on behalf of all British Columbians, as the minister says, you clearly have to make a statement. You have to say where the provincial government stands on the areas of jurisdiction with regard to self-government. I happen to believe very strongly that the general form of government should be a delegated form of authority that would be, at least in fundamentals, similar to a municipal style of government, perhaps a county-style government or a more embracing style of government. The areas of jurisdiction would have to be broader, particularly in education, delivery of health care services, and delivery of welfare and social services.
Quite clearly you've got to take a position on taxation. We've got to understand what areas of taxation and jurisdiction apply. It's not good enough, with all due respect, to say we're simply going to go to the negotiations -- different ones running concurrently, we hope, in the future -- and see how this all plays out. Unless you have a very solid position on behalf of the province, I think you're going to come out with some wildly different arrangements. But perhaps the minister would like to tell us more about the approach, which would hopefully shed a bit more light on this critically important topic.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comments. He expressed concern with regard to third parties and their role in the negotiations. I recognize that there have been modern treaties negotiated in the Territories and the Yukon, and I'd be interested if he would like to show examples from the negotiation of those modern treaties of where a different approach has worked better. I would suggest that the approach that we are following is an approach that has a track record.
[ Page 10256 ]
The hon. member does not think it's a good idea that six treaties be negotiated at one time. He might want to share a little more on that, given that if you can only negotiate one at a time, we're looking at something that is going to take an awfully long time. Again, I'm not sure how that would benefit the need to be addressing the urgency of the situation, albeit in a process that's incremental and appropriate.
The hon. member has raised concerns with regard to the possibility that there might be different management regimes and different approaches used across the province in dealing with different negotiations. Our ministry is currently working with other agencies to establish provincewide approaches to the key components of those negotiations. These provincial mandates will ensure consistency within sectors and equity between different sectors, while still recognizing the need for flexibility in responding to varying circumstances around the province.
We recognize that there can be no cookie-cutter approach, given the uniqueness that has been acknowledged by various members who have spoken already. At the same time as recognizing the uniqueness in the interest of the province, we have to be building a consistent approach that's clearly understandable. There's no reason why the process that we have embarked on would preclude the opportunity for that to happen.
With regard to the issues of taxation, for instance, the branch within the ministry will be working with the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and the Attorney General ministry to ensure a coordinated approach occurs with tax initiatives that may be taken by the province or first nations. I would also point out that when we consider the Nisga'a negotiation that is underway, issues are being discussed that have to do with justice, and they're being discussed within the context of the Criminal Code. As you look at the process, it indicates that self-government is an issue discussed at the table, which is certainly an appropriate way to be going about this, recognizing that there are procedures in place that ensure consistency across the board as we proceed.
The party that the hon. member was formally a member of deserves credit, I think, for having negotiated the historic agreement with the Sechelt. Self-government was indeed the topic in that negotiation. When that was concluded, it did not result in destabilizing the relationship between the province and first nations. Indeed, I think it was one of those examples that will form a body of examples. As I said before, once we get the agreement in principle with the Nisga'a, it will start to indicate a pattern that is creative and positive and is dealing with the issues in a consistent approach right across the board.
[4:30]
J. Weisgerber: Unfortunately, the minister appears to have misunderstood the fundamental point that I was trying to make. He suggests somehow that what happened in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is a parallel to what is happening here in British Columbia. I don't think anything could be further from the case.
The Yukon and Northwest Territories settlements were jurisdiction-wide; an agreement was reached on self-government that covered the entire territory. There weren't separate negotiations with different bands across the Yukon or across the Northwest Territories. There was one central land claims negotiation in each of those jurisdictions. To conclude from my comments that I thought doing six claims at once was bad.... Nothing could be further from the truth.
I understand, as the minister does, that if we continue to negotiate the claims one at a time, we'll never get them concluded. There has to be a number of concurrent negotiations. The point is, if there isn't a central negotiating position taken by those six, eight, or whatever number of negotiating teams, what will come out of the negotiations will be a whole range of self-government agreements that may have no consistency at all.
I was looking to the minister to tell us the position of the province going into negotiations as it relates to native land claims and self-government. It's alarming to hear the minister say that we're working with other ministries to develop a framework. We're four years into negotiations with the Nisga'a. We're hoping that the minister is going to be taking part in the announcement of some resolution with the Nisga'a. To think that Finance is working on some position paper with regard to taxation, and other ministries are working to develop a framework that has flexibility.... One would assume that this work was done a long time ago, and that the government, in accepting the recommendations of the Treaty Commission as to dealing with more than one set of claims at once, would have set off immediately on what the minister now suggests.
Just so there is no misunderstanding on the part of the minister, I don't think there is anything wrong with negotiating more than one claim at once; I think it's absolutely necessary. I do believe that the province has to have a consistent position to take to those negotiations and that the minister owes it not only to this committee but also to the people of the province to lay out the position of the government of British Columbia in going into these negotiations. That unwillingness to share that information, I think, is at the core of the enormous concern in British Columbia about the secrecy around land claims negotiations.
The government not only won't share the details of negotiations, but it fails to share the position it takes into negotiations. It fails to lay out a position in any form. The answer to everything is: "We're negotiating. It's flexible; we don't have a hard position here." That causes people a great deal of concern. If the minister hasn't travelled around British Columbia and doesn't recognize the extent of that concern, then he does himself and this whole process a disservice. There is a concern there: go to Smithers; go to Terrace; go to Prince Rupert; go to Hazelton. Go to the areas around the Nisga'a settlement in Stewart, if the minister believes that the process is working to the satisfaction of those British Columbians who aren't directly involved.
Will the minister give us a sense of the areas of jurisdiction? In what areas of jurisdiction does the minister believe it appropriate to negotiate as part of these settlement processes? Further, let me say that this question of self-government is not unique to British Columbia, as some of the people here know. All across this province, in areas where treaties have been in place for 100 or 200 years, self-government is being negotiated outside of the land claim and treaty-making process. Surely to goodness somebody has some common positions that are being taken, so that at the end of the day we will understand -- as British Columbians and as Canadians -- what self-government means. It doesn't affect only people living on first nation lands or first nation citizens; it affects everyone. I think the government and the minister have to start opening up and telling people where they stand on this. It may not be where we are at the end of the day, but for heaven's sake, let's let people know what the starting position is. I can't imagine
[ Page 10257 ]
why you wouldn't want to do that. Perhaps the minister will enlighten me.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I would like to enlighten the hon. member. First of all, with regard to the hon. member's comment about the Yukon, he's absolutely incorrect. There was a framework agreement with regard to the Yukon, but self-government was negotiated separately with the various nations. So he's incorrect about that; self-government was negotiated separately.
He is correct in the most recent remark he made just before sitting down. We need to take advantage of what has been gleaned from these negotiations -- certainly within British Columbia but with regard to other jurisdictions as well -- which we are doing.
It's very interesting to hear some of the comments of the hon. member, given his historic role which has led up, in some ways, to the process that we find ourselves in at the present time. For instance, I have a document here that was signed on December 3, 1990, on behalf of this hon. member when he was the minister. It's appendix 1 in the task force report, and the title of this document is "The British Columbia Claims Task Force Terms of Reference." The hon. member signed that document, setting in motion the process that led to the establishment of the recommendations of the task force, which this government accepted upon taking office.
It's curious to hear some of the points this hon. member is making. When this hon. member was bringing the government into the Nisga'a negotiations, I remember clearly that he recognized that in order for him to do his job properly, it was important to maintain confidentiality with regard to basic negotiating positions, as is the case with any negotiating positions. To suggest that this government is not being open in an area where it's important to protect the integrity of our negotiating positions is to counsel something that he would not have dared to have counselled at the time he had that responsibility. So, hon. member, that was just a little too convenient. It's a bit of a curious irony that the position that this hon. member is taking would have shifted to that degree in that period of time.
There is a list of topics in the appendix to the task force report. The hon. member asked for a list of the kinds of topics that would be discussed in a typical negotiation, and I would certainly be glad to share that with him. I won't go through the entire list, but it lists such things as: access; amendment procedure; ratification process; beneficiary organizations; certainty and finality; first nations government; environmental issues; funding; government programs; implementation; and language, culture, archeology and heritage objectives. There is a wide range of topics attached to the report that this hon. member had a role in facilitating during his term in government. What our government has done has been consistent with following through on the integrity of the approach that was put in place there.
We have indicated that in cases like Sechelt and the Territories, where self-government has been discussed, that has not been detrimental, as the hon. member suggests. Indeed, it has informed a process and it has become a body of information. As we achieve each one of those successes, that body of experience and information becomes more informative to the next negotiations that come along. I was glad to hear the hon. member recognize in the comments that he made latterly that we cannot just have one negotiation at one time.
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to assume that the minister doesn't deliberately misunderstand the points I'm trying to make and approach it in that fashion. The question that I asked the minister was: do you have a position on the form that self-government would take? Do you have a model? Is it the Sechelt model? Are we to understand that what the government is taking forward is a model saying: "We believe that the appropriate powers" -- the division of powers, the delegation of powers, however you want to call it -- "is as it was done at Sechelt"? If that's the model that the negotiators are taking forward in the Nisga'a and other negotiations, then I will have a sense. Is it the Yukon model? Is that the position that the minister's negotiators are taking forward? Why not lay out for British Columbians a vision that the minister has of self-government in a British Columbia context?
The minister suggests that somehow the agreement signed with the Nisga'a is contrary to the position that I'm taking, and I would agree with him. When we agreed to enter into the Nisga'a negotiations, the negotiations had been in progress for more than a decade with the federal government. I didn't think at that time that anyone would want us to move that process backward in order to achieve the kind of openness that we were seeking when we entered into that agreement. Clearly in the wording of that agreement, we believed that the province would have the ability to correspond and to communicate with interested groups the position being taken forward by the province. The only confidentiality that, I believe, was affected by the Nisga'a agreement was on the decisions as they were made. But there's nothing in the Nisga'a agreement that would preclude the province laying out its position on any issue. It's a red herring that's been used so many times by successive ministers over there that it is, quite honestly, getting a bit worn and threadbare.
[4:45]
The point is, as was raised by the Liberal critic, if you're going to get any success, and if you think you're going to get public support for settlements, then the Crown has to start putting its positions forward. We've got to get some sense. We've talked now for an hour and a half; I have no more sense now than I had when I started as to the model of self-government the minister is prepared to sign off. Is the minister prepared to give rights on gambling on first nations land? Are you ready to concede that? Is the minister prepared to concede taxing authorities on reserve or other first nations land? Is the minister prepared to concede interpretation and adjudication of criminal law on aboriginal lands and in communities? Where is the minister coming down on this? Does he see this self-government process as a delegation flowing from provincial and federal jurisdiction and statute? Surely to goodness there is nothing to be gained in the negotiations by the minister's failing to state a position. I can understand -- although, as I said before, not agree with -- keeping a tight hand on fiscal and land issues, but I can't imagine any rationale for the government not being open and forthright on its position on self-government. Just tell us what you believe the ideal self-government model for aboriginal communities would look like. Then we would have a sense and, I guess, an opportunity to also gauge the negotiations in various venues.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have, I think, a very worthwhile vision that's based on the oft-stated commitment to achieve certainty through developing the kinds of negotiating teams that work in a context where there is respect and where we
[ Page 10258 ]
are able to move forward with regard to the main themes that we've mentioned over and over again.
The hon. member is obviously very interested in getting this government to put its basic negotiating positions out on the table, which, I have come to the conclusion, will do a disservice to the negotiating process. I think on that point we have to agree to disagree.
He raised a smorgasbord of issues: will this be there, will that be there, will the other thing be there? With regard to the gambling issue, the fact is -- as the hon. member well knows -- that the Minister of Government Services has embarked on a process in which he will be making an announcement with regard to the deliberations that he's undertaken with first nations and with others on this issue. That is a process whereby this government is addressing that consideration.
He raises the issue of taxation. He's well aware that the area of real property taxation is already available under the taxation enabling act.
He has mentioned issues with regard to justice. I've pointed out that it's our position that the Canadian Criminal Code does apply and will apply. I think I've said over and over again that the self-government negotiations take place within the Canadian context.
I mentioned Sechelt. The fact is that Sechelt is one of an array of negotiations that may have some application in certain aspects. I've mentioned that no amount of this can be considered to be a cookie-cutter for all situations. I have heard the hon. member state his position many, many times, and I think that we have to recognize that we agree to disagree on the process. As we continue the work that we've embarked on, I believe that we recognize that the provincial government has gone further than the federal government, which is just now embarking on a process of discussing, through consultation, the meaning of self-government. I would reiterate that the discussions that take place within the treaty-making context will be productive and valuable discussions. They will be made public at an appropriate time. As we complete various negotiations, such as an AIP, with the Nisga'a, I think that is going to be the point at which much of that confidential information -- and the hon. member understands the confidentiality of that process -- will be made available.
However, I think we must recognize that self-government, quite simply, is the right to govern. That doesn't mean sovereignty, but it does include the right to administer taxes, pass laws and manage land and natural resources. That vision is stated in documents that this government has put out. In that context, it's very clear that self-government means the right to negotiate with other governments, and in some instances it means that there could be responsibility for education and some aspects of health, based on how that has been negotiated. It also refers to the potential to have arrangements between the provincial government and the first nations government with regard to social welfare services, child care services, and services relating to adoption and that kind of issue. The extent and the application absolutely and clearly have to be a function of what happens within that negotiation process, which has an understandable need for confidentiality built into it. The array of issues is within the various topics that are discussed in that context, and I think it is very clear that the vision is a very hopeful vision, which I believe is shared.
J. Weisgerber: I'm at the point where I suspect it's not in the interests of anyone to push the issue much further, inasmuch as the minister is quite determined not to share with British Columbians any information, thoughts or vision he has for self-government. Unfortunately, I don't have any better understanding of what the minister and his government are trying to achieve in negotiations, and I think that will continue to cause not just me but British Columbians in general a great deal of concern. It's unfortunate that the minister is unwilling to take the opportunity to share with us a sense of the direction the government is taking.
I don't believe that the province and the process are going to be well served by his position. I hope, as the minister moves forward in this process, that he will at some point come to understand that British Columbians want to be involved and to have access to that information, which I don't believe serves any strategic purpose at all by being withheld. I simply can't see what strategic advantage there is in all the various levels of government -- the three parties -- not being very forthright about the position they're taking in the negotiations. I can't see why the parties want to deal with issues like self-government as if they were playing a poker game. I'll play a card, you play a card and we'll all see.... I think you would serve the process far more admirably by entering in an open and honest way and saying: "Here's our position; let's see if we can work out some agreement that will accommodate your interests and our interests as well." If the decision today is that we'll agree to disagree, we will. I believe fundamentally that the approach we're taking to this isn't going to serve any of the participants nearly as well as a more open negotiating process would.
A. Warnke: There is one thing I want to explore along this line as well. I was planning to address specific bands and reserves on their own, but since the Sechelt model was raised, I think it's appropriate in this context of self-government. It is one model out there, and as the minister and everyone knows, it's not necessarily a model that is universally accepted in the aboriginal community. There are those who support the model and those who are not supportive of it. I was struck by a comment last December, when the Sechelt themselves expressed some concern about whether they could stay with the model they presently have. It was suggested at the time that the Sechelt may begin to explore other models of self-government if the government is moving in many different areas by negotiating one kind of relationship with one aboriginal community over here and a different kind of relationship with another aboriginal community over there, and so on. It seems that the Sechelt themselves began to question that, saying they'd like to have some stability. But, on the other hand, if there were a move toward a new model of self-government, they would want to be a part of it. Perhaps the minister could provide his assessment concerning the Sechelt in the present context. I wonder whether he has thought about the relationship between the provincial government and the Sechelt, and where that is going.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member suggested that the Sechelt may be considering renegotiating the agreement they now have with the provincial government. My understanding is that the issue is a little different than that. It is not to renegotiate self-government but to move into negotiating a treaty with regard to lands and resources. My understanding of the Sechelt situation is that they recognize that a great deal has been accomplished historically which has served their purposes, but that it is not complete. They have therefore been seeking to complete what was begun by having the first stage dealt with.
[ Page 10259 ]
Regarding the self-government arrangement negotiated with the Sechelt, I would not want anything I say to indicate that I see that as a cookie-cutter for other self-government. All I'm saying when I refer to it is that it is part of a body of examples that is emerging as these negotiations proceed both here in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions, and our negotiators and our government having access to that information is helpful in terms of further steps that we take along this road.
I did visit the Sechelt several weeks ago, and we talked about the possibility of their issue being negotiated. It was a cordial meeting, and we left it with parties on all sides feeling that we were into a better relationship, with the hope that we'd be able to resolve some of the unfinished issues between us.
A. Warnke: From the minister's remarks, it seems clear that as far as the Sechelt definition of self-government is concerned, it's his impression that they are totally satisfied with it. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wouldn't presume to say that on their behalf. I can honestly say that I do not know the answer to that question. I guess any of us could ask ourselves, as British Columbians, if we're totally satisfied with our self-government arrangements.
With regard to the Sechelt, when we visited there, we made it very clear to them that we were appointing our assistant deputy minister of regions, Randy Brant, to take a personal hold on that file so that we could ensure that we dealt appropriately with the issues of concern to them.
[5:00]
A. Warnke: The minister also mentioned the memorandum of understanding with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I suppose it's fair to say that UBCM has made very clear their opposition to the notion of a third order of government or anything like that. That also raises some concerns as to the direction we're going in terms of aboriginal self-government. I wonder if the ministry is really trying to avoid that route and is therefore aware of the UBCM's opposition to the notion of a third order of government. Or is the provincial government trying to communicate, explore or negotiate with the UBCM as to leaving an avenue open to the possibility of a distinct order of government for aboriginals?
Hon. J. Cashore: In response to that question, the province, by virtue of a memorandum of understanding with the UBCM, has drawn a clear distinction between local governments and other stakeholders or third parties. The MOU commits the province to working with local governments as respected advisers to the provincial negotiating teams. It involves a plan to involve local governments in negotiations, which will be developed during the readiness phase of treaty negotiations as set out by the B.C. Treaty Commission.
We have committed to consult with local government on any issue that might affect them. The province and the UBCM will cooperate in the implementation of a public consultation process in each land claim area, and the UBCM will cooperate and participate, where possible, in the implementation of a public education information process in each land claim. Subject to budgetary allocations, the province has agreed to fund participation costs beyond an amount contributed by local governments to the UBCM for that purpose.
A. Warnke: I suppose there is the concern by the municipal and city governments that as we move toward some sort of resolution.... I guess I have in mind some cities, particularly in the northern part of this province, such as Terrace. It has been expressed to me that many people in Terrace are concerned as to the direction we're headed in terms of seeking some sort of resolution. I think what everyone wants out of this is some notion of stability or security, and that whatever resolution that occurs doesn't necessarily jeopardize municipal and city governments that are already stable.
Just to follow up on the memorandum of understanding and perhaps apply it to communities in close proximity to large, outstanding claims, such as the Nisga'a, I wonder if the minister could elaborate on his assessment of those communities.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the Nisga'a, the UBCM is organizing its own local government committees in areas of the province where treaty negotiations are anticipated. So they will have a direct role in that context. A committee has already been established in the northwest in conjunction with the Nisga'a negotiation. In May a workshop will be held in Terrace, where local government officials from the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince George will identify interests specific to the Nisga'a negotiation and a set of general interests for possible use in other areas of the province.
A. Warnke: With aboriginal people feeling that they are moving toward some sort of resolution of self-government and land claims settlements, I suppose there's an expectation that many of these problems and issues will be resolved within a few years. Some -- the chiefs in particular -- are quite aware that it may take some time. But there is an expectation as well. When the minister talked about educating the public.... And I think I agree with him here. An absolutely critical component of how to resolve some of these issues is to communicate with and educate everyone involved -- aboriginals and non-aboriginals -- about where we're going. Nonetheless, what steps are being taken to deal with some of these expectations? Some people have very high expectations. What is the ministry doing to make people aware of the problems and the pitfalls, as well as the expectations for resolving some of these?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would be the first to acknowledge that there are high expectations on the part of first nations and also of non-first nations people. As I stated earlier, I recognize that this is an area where we have a major challenge in dealing with the educational aspect, getting out the kind of information that not only puts forward the vision that this process can accomplish, but does so in a format that people can accept and appreciate. Much of that work is underway. Parts of it need to be done on a tripartite basis; the Treaty Commission certainly recognizes that.
Recently we put out the booklet called "In Fairness To All: Moving Towards Treaty Settlements in British Columbia." It's a very informative booklet. It gives a good historic overview and deals with some of the concepts. It also defines some of the terms in use. It recognizes that there's a new vocabulary being developed and used in these discussions. We recognize the importance of getting information out to all parties in a variety of ways, and we recognize that this needs to be a very creative process. There will be more initiatives in this area -- some of them unilateral on the part of
[ Page 10260 ]
government, and some of them based on the tripartite process.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to take a different tack on a different area of self-government; I'm thinking of urban self-government or self-government that's not on reserve lands or first nations lands. Can the minister tell us what plans, if any, he has? Or, to back up another step, can the minister give us his vision for urban self-government? I'm assuming this can't be part of land claims negotiations, given the makeup of the urban first nations community coming from not only across the province but indeed from across the nation. I'm hoping the minister won't tell us that, too, is part of land claims negotiations; it seems to me to be a much less complex situation.
Perhaps the minister can tell us what he envisions in that respect, recognizing that particularly Vancouver, but also Victoria, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Terrace, Prince George.... I get into the risk of naming a bunch of relatives and leaving one out, and I don't want to leave out a community that's going to feel left out; I use those by way of example. Can the minister give us any indication of how his government intends to approach the question of urban self-government?
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to acknowledge, first of all, with regard to urban issues and first nations peoples, that we are in a very early stage of developing the process that identifies or scopes out the issues and gets down to brass tacks in terms of producing anything that would look like self-government. As a matter of fact, while we have two joint policy tables now -- one with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and one with the First Nations Summit -- we do not at the present time have in place a policy table representing the urban first nations peoples. Four off-reserve organizations have expressed interest in working together on a policy forum with the province: the Aboriginal Women's Council, the B.C. Association of Indian Friendship Centres, the Native Brotherhood of B.C. -- and the Native Sisterhood -- and the United Native Nations. So we are at a very preliminary stage in the process of setting up that table.
With regard to what might be a vision of urban self-government, given the very significant population of people from first nations communities right across Canada living in urban areas, we recognize that the most significant issues to them have to do with child welfare, health and social services. The scoping-out of those issues is at a very preliminary stage. The work at hand during this coming year is to set up a table whereby we will be in a position to begin to scope out those topics that the government of B.C. and that policy table would agree to discuss.
There are three Metis organizations in the province: the Louis Riel Metis Association, the Pacific Metis Federation and the Vancouver Island Metis Association. They have recently gone through a process of setting up a secretariat which, to some extent, brings them all under one umbrella. Again, there are plans during the coming year to begin to work with them to set up a joint policy table.
J. Weisgerber: It seems to me that the minister's description of the position on urban issues is almost as I would have described it in 1990, having spent considerable time discussing these issues with UNN and the other groups, particularly the urban groups the minister mentions. Could he give us a sense of any progress that might have been made during his tenure as minister? Has anything moved the process forward over the time the minister has held the portfolio?
Hon. J. Cashore: We have agreements to set these tables up, which I have referred to. Those agreements have come into existence within the last few months. We have the support of government with regard to putting in place the resources needed to set those tables up, and I have personally gone to locations in the lower mainland to meet with the member organizations and have some preliminary discussions with them. What has changed since the time this hon. member was the minister is that we now have put the resources in place, both in terms of an agreement to set up the tables and the financial resources to enable them to come into being. Hopefully, we'll be able to have those tables up and running this year.
J. Weisgerber: The minister mentioned the three Metis groups, and I was unsure from his comments whether he was anticipating, perhaps, another government within the urban area. I'm unsure. It threw me a little, the fact that he raised the Metis groups in the context he did. Perhaps, for clarification, the minister can tell us whether he envisions an aboriginal urban government, or perhaps two or more in a large community. If not, what kind of progress has there been in coming together? But maybe before I make assumptions I should hear from him the approach he's taking.
[5:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: With the Metis, certainly, there's a tripartite aspect to that, and the federal government has indicated, in a very preliminary way, an interest in participating in that process. But, as I said before, the discussions are very preliminary. We're just starting to scope out the kinds of issues and services we may be discussing in the context of these two tables.
J. Weisgerber: I would assume that there would be a tripartite aspect to all areas of self-government negotiations. I wouldn't expect it it to be particularly unique that the federal government would be involved with the Metis discussions. I would assume that the urban self-government we discussed would also have a similar federal involvement. I'm not sure, then, whether the minister said, "Yes, we're pursuing two different governments," or, "Yes, we're working toward a structure for urban governance."
Hon. J. Cashore: I take the hon. member's point about tripartite, but I think that we have to look at that as a goal, given that we should not allow a tripartite imperative to preclude us sitting down at a joint policy table with one of these entities in order to discuss issues of mutual concern. Just to spell that out a little bit more, the First Nations Summit, as you know, working with the provincial government and the federal government, has enabled the tripartite treaty negotiation process, of which the B.C. Treaty Commission is part. We also have joint policy tables, and we have a joint policy table with the First Nations Summit. At this point, that is not a tripartite process. It's a government-to-government meeting that takes place on a regular basis, and it involves the Premier and six or seven members of cabinet, as well as chiefs from the summit.
Again, with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, we have a bipartite table which involves the Premier, members of cabinet and chiefs of the UBCIC. It looks as though there could be a tripartite component to the two tables I have just referred to regarding the historic role of the Metis with the federal government. That is at a very early stage, and indeed we are having discussions about that with our counterparts in Ottawa. At the present time we are not discussing the
[ Page 10261 ]
table with the off-reserve people being set up as a tripartite table. Where there are tripartite issues that need to be brought to bear, of course, that will be a point that we would be making as a provincial government.
J. Weisgerber: As we're reaching the end of the day, the one issue I'd like to raise before leaving, or winding up personally for the day at least, is the question of government, self-government and governance relating to the only Metis community in British Columbia, and that's the Kelly Lake community. It's quite a unique situation, one that I assume the minister is familiar with. For anyone who isn't, it's a small community in my constituency very near the Alberta border. It perhaps more closely resembles the Metis colonies of Alberta and the other prairie provinces but is without the same kind of regulatory or legislative structure. There are some unique issues there, and I'm wondering if the ministry is moving to deal with some of those governance questions in that community, which is presently administered by a number of agencies. The regional district takes its traditional role, as it does all across the region, as does the Ministry of Highways in terms of road issues, the Ministry of Education, and the list goes on. Perhaps the minister could give me a bit of information.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to Kelly Lake, I mentioned before that there is a secretariat that has three different Metis organizations under that umbrella, so to speak. Kelly Lake is in the process of deciding whether or not they wish to come under that umbrella and participate in that process. If they do, that would then bring them to a table that is being set up.
With regard to other points the hon. member has made regarding Kelly Lake, if there are other issues there you wish to have us respond to, I will do that. If we don't have that information right now, we will bring it back.
J. Weisgerber: The essence of the questions today are around whether or not there is any anticipated structure for Kelly Lake. While I recognize their difficulty in deciding whether they want to belong to the Louis Riel Metis Association, the Pacific Metis Federation or the Vancouver Island group, the reality is that they probably wouldn't feel a particularly close relationship with any of those organizations, given that most of them tend to be focused in the lower mainland and these folks are 700 miles away, facing a whole series of different questions. I raise this issue as a constituency issue, not necessarily in my role as a critic of government but to try and raise in your mind a sense of the issues that are there. I think about 300 folks are now living there; it really is a unique situation where there is a need for some form of governance, and at the moment none exists. I would encourage the minister to have someone work directly with the people of Kelly Lake, rather than asking them to decide whether or not they want to involve themselves with this group that essentially has a whole series of issues that are not related to the kinds of issues facing the folks in Kelly Lake.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our ADM of regions and his staff have had discussions with Kelly Lake. They have discussed with them the possibility of them not joining the Pacific Metis Federation or any other association but joining the group that would come together to work with government to form a table. If they decided to do that, they would gain access to a regular meeting with government and the opportunity to scope out issues. I recognize that where there are four different groups -- and one of them is very unique, as the hon. member says -- they may decide that it's in their interest to access the availability of that kind of table. However, we don't know the answer to that yet; we're waiting for their answer. If the answer is yes, they're going to join that process, fine. That doesn't mean that we say that that's all there is to it. As the hon. member has identified, there are some very interesting aspects to that community.
On the other hand, if they decide not to join that table, we will still be in discussions with them with regard to some of their concerns. As a matter of fact, I hope that during my term I will have an opportunity to visit there, because I have been very intrigued to hear about the circumstances of that community and some of the problems that they've been having. I would very much like to go there, if invited, to see it for myself.
J. Weisgerber: I would encourage you to have your assistant deputy continue in those roles. I know he is perhaps as personally familiar with many of the situations as anyone, and would be very well qualified to work on some of those solutions. I know he would appreciate the chance to go back to Dawson Creek to renew acquaintances there and deal with some of those issues. Perhaps you'll take him along as well on your trip there.
The Chair: Hon. members, it is nearly 5:30. It is our normal practice to break at this time. I'm prepared to entertain a motion to do that or, if you'd like, to continue for another ten or 15 minutes. We could do that as well; I'm in your hands.
C. Serwa: I will have quite a number of questions to ask on this very topic, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]